Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > IMHO, it's better to just have a deadline, and stuff either makes > it or it doesn't. I realize we haven't always adhered to the > principle in the past, but at least IMV that's not a mistake we > want to continue repeating. +1 I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating, that deferring this to 9.2 doesn't mean that it comes out in a production release 12 months later -- unless we continue to repeat this mistake endlessly. It means that this release comes out closer to when we said it would -- for the sake of argument let's hypothesize one month. So by holding the line on such inclusions all the current 9.1 features come out one month sooner, and this feature comes out 11 months later than it would have if we'd put it into 9.1. With some feature we consider squeezing in, it would be more like delaying everything which is done by three months so that one feature gets out nine months earlier. Perhaps the best way to describe the suggestion that this be included in 9.1 isn't that it's an insane suggestion; but that it's a suggestion which, if adopted, would be likely to drive those who are striving for a more organized development and release process insane. Or one could look at it in a cost/benefit format -- major features delivered per year go up by holding the line, administrative costs are reduced, and people who are focusing on release stability get more months per year to do development. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
