Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > Yep, the bottom line here is that patches get into CVS, but issues
> > come up related to the patch, and we keep looking for good fixes,
> > but once the final commit-fest is over, we _have_ to fix these
> > issues.
>
> If, hypothetically, it might hold up the release for two weeks while
> such issues are sorted out, might it be better to revert and say the
> patch missed the release because it wasn't workable enough at the end
> of the last CF to allow a beta release to be generated? If the net
> result was that a feature or two were delayed until the next release,
> but all developers had two more weeks of development time in the next
> release cycle, it seems like reverting would be a net gain.
The problem is that many of these decisions are complex so it gets no
easier to make the decisions later rather than now. The delay forces us
to make a final decision. We often had months to make the decision
earlier, but didn't.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +