Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > My thinking is to move to a two stage release process: Do one > > "production" release annually, and one "dev" release at the 6 month > > mid-point. That way each new release contains a manageable number of new > > features and we have a realistic chance of integrating them > > successfully. Support companies would then have the option to support > > both releases, or just the main production release. Leading edge users, > > of which we have many, would then benefit from more frequent additional > > features. > > I like the idea of draining the patch queue mid-way through the release > cycle. That'll hopefully encourage people to submit patches earlier in > the release cycle, knowing they will be reviewed. It'll also give people > working on external projects, drivers and tools, a checkpoint to sync with.
Aside from a few complex patches all the patches in the queue are from work completed just before feature freeze --- we have been draining it during the entire release. I think for the few complex patches that have been in there for a while, the problem is that reviewing them is going to be so hard, no one has done it. Now that we are in feature freeze, we have to do it --- but the idea that we have somehow just been holding patches during the whole release isn't true. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
