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 <[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 6: explain analyze is your friend
