[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Berkus) writes: > Simon, > >> We can issue a provisional date. We could also say "at least 6 months >> after release date of 8.3". I'm sure there's other options too. > > I'm going to suggest 4 months after 8.3. 8.3 was supposed to be a *short* > release so that we could move our calendar around. HOT and some of the > other unexpected massive patches prevented that. Again, we have enough in > the "deferred for 8.4" queue that if we finished up only that it would > qualify as a release. > > So my thought is, shoot for a short release so that we can get away from > summer consolidations and December releases, and extend the cycle if > someone dumps another 50,000 lines of attractive patches on us. > > In fact, I could see doing a "no-catalog-changes, no major patches we don't > already know about, 6-month release". It would reset our cycle and get > PL/proxy, DSM, clustered indexes, etc. out the door. It could mean > turning away patches which look attractive, though, so the whole community > has to be into this.
There are good things about that idea. There would also be good things about picking a somewhat *longer* cycle in that we already just had a cycle where the "feature freeze" period was supposedly a short one, which precluded implementing anything requiring more planning. - It seems at least somewhat unfair to burden the 8.4 cycle with the "sins" of the 8.3 cycle. - There is the risk that even with the restriction, 8.4 might still not be a short cycle, which would make the attempt futile. - And would we then say "hey, we need for 8.5 to have a shortened cycle too"? -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc")) http://linuxfinances.info/info/multiplexor.html Space is big. Really big. You won't believe how vastly mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen.... ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
