Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Yeah; the agreement we had was that 8.3 would be a short release. So if
> > we're going to take too long to review and apply the outstanding patches
> > we have, we should rather push them to 8.4, get 8.3 released quickly and
> > then go on with the regular annual release. The postponed patches can
> > be reviewed and committed early in 8.4, instead of at the last minute in
> > 8.3. Sounds like a smarter, safer move.
>
> Hmm, I do not have an overview on this, but like Alvaro mentions, the
> shorter release cycles for 8.3 was done because we felt that a number of
> patches that were originally slated for 8.2 were almost but not quite
> ready for 8.2. So are all of those patches from back then ready to go
> into 8.3? If not then it would indicate that fast tracking a release
> cycle for patches there are not quite there yet is not paying off?
>
> Otherwise, if all/most of the patches originally planned for 8.2 have
> made it into 8.3, everything is good. If new additions are not yet ready
> then they will just get bumped to 8.4, just like the changes that got
> bumped to 8.3.
The patches _might_ be ready. Please re-read my earlier posting that
started this thread -- the major problem is new developers adding
complex features, and the difficulty of reviewing all of that.
Fortunately I have gotten approval from EnterpriseDB for Heikki to spend
full-time helping with the 8.3 patch queue, and he, Tom and I have
already been over many of the items via private email and will be moving
forward.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +