> > > > > > Looks like this variable size stuff will be the first new feature
> > > > > > for 6.4 then, eh? :)
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the chance of having this ready by Friday? Still would
> > > > > give us 3weeks of debugging...
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's OK to leave _one_ feature for v6.4. Bruce is probably
> > > > tired of typing the feature list :)
> > > >
> > > > Also, we still have a few loose ends for v6.3. But, I'll bet Darren's stuff can
> > > > go in and not affect anything if we run using the current block size.
> > >
> > > Great chance of having it by Friday if not sooner. I'll get on it tonite.
> > >
> > > Wasn't sure where the line in the sand was for "adding features" vs "fixing bugs."
> >
> > I think Marc is getting softer on this issue. [Ducks head]
>
> Moi? Never...some ppl have shown over time a...dedication towards
> fixing any bugs they introduce in a *very* timely manner *grin* A little
> leeway, as appropriate, tends to reap large rewards for all
> parties...specially if we can help improve disk space usage by providing
> the ability to tailor disk block size used :)
The variable block size stuff won't be done by tonite. Something I've done in
the tape sorting routines is causing a core dump during the constraints regression
test and I haven't been able to track it down the last two evenings.
Sorry about that folks. I'm going to keep on it, but I wouldn't feel too
comfortable putting in the beta any later than now.
darrenk
