On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So let's get on with it. We're not holding up releases for patches
> that may or may not materialize.
I don't disagree. Just pointing out that it's a consideration.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@p
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:28:39PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We're really rather overdue for updates of the pre-9.4 back branches,
>>> and 9.4 itself has probably baked for long enough to justify a 9.4.1.
>>> Acco
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:28:39PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > We're really rather overdue for updates of the pre-9.4 back branches,
> > and 9.4 itself has probably baked for long enough to justify a 9.4.1.
> > Accordingly, the core committe
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> We're really rather overdue for updates of the pre-9.4 back branches,
> and 9.4 itself has probably baked for long enough to justify a 9.4.1.
> Accordingly, the core committee has agreed to wrap releases the week
> after next; that's wrap Mon Feb
We're really rather overdue for updates of the pre-9.4 back branches,
and 9.4 itself has probably baked for long enough to justify a 9.4.1.
Accordingly, the core committee has agreed to wrap releases the week
after next; that's wrap Mon Feb 2 for public announcement Thu Feb 5.
