On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On lör, 2010-01-09 at 14:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> If we accept large patches at the very end of the development cycle,
>> that's when people will submit them. You've previously criticized the
>> high proportion of the release cycle that is set aside for CommitFest
>> and beta, so I'm surprised to see you advocating for a policy that
>> seems likely to lengthen the time for which the tree is closed.
>
> Just to clarify: I am for sticking to the agreed dates. If some things
> are not ready by the necessary date plus/minus one, they won't make the
> release. If it's obvious earlier that something won't make the date, it
> shouldn't be committed, and maybe put on the backburner right now. But
> AFAICT, that's independent of when it was submitted. Some things that
> were submitted just the other day might be almost ready, some things
> that were first submitted many months ago are still not ready.
The portion of the schedule I'm worried about is the one where we go
to beta by March 7th.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-09/msg01251.php
I think we can get all the remaining large patches committed by
February 15th if Tom doesn't start working on the remaining open items
until February 15th - but then I do not think that we will have a beta
on March 7th.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg00663.php
...Robert