Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On 22. Januar 2010 15:40:58 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
Beta is still the definite cutoff; and the closer we get to
beta, the smaller the acceptable changes become. I think that formula
basically applies throughout the entire cycle.
For someone like me it's har
--On 22. Januar 2010 15:40:58 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
Beta is still the definite cutoff; and the closer we get to
beta, the smaller the acceptable changes become. I think that formula
basically applies throughout the entire cycle.
For someone like me it's hard to guess, what "small
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I'm not sure whether you're stating a position that's been agreed to
>> by -core or some other group, or just expressing your own opinion, but
>> I think feature freeze should be the beginning of the last CommitFest,
>> no
Robert Haas writes:
> I'm not sure whether you're stating a position that's been agreed to
> by -core or some other group, or just expressing your own opinion, but
> I think feature freeze should be the beginning of the last CommitFest,
> not the end.
I think traditionally we understood "feature
2010/1/22 Devrim GÜNDÜZ :
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 09:10 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm not sure whether you're stating a position that's been agreed to
>> by -core or some other group, or just expressing your own opinion, but
>> I think feature freeze should be the beginning of the last CommitFes
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 09:10 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm not sure whether you're stating a position that's been agreed to
> by -core or some other group, or just expressing your own opinion, but
> I think feature freeze should be the beginning of the last CommitFest,
> not the end.
Was is decl
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tor, 2010-01-21 at 18:05 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ... is that going
to apply at the end of the commitfest?
Feature freeze was used to discoura
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2010-01-21 at 18:05 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ... is that going
>> to apply at the end of the commitfest?
>
> Feature freeze was used to discourage the submission of very big
On tor, 2010-01-21 at 19:45 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, that does seem to be endorsing a sort of two-tiered system.
In those words, yes, it's a multi-tiered system. The aim of the commit
fests is to make the "lower" tier more effective, but not necessarily to
bring the "upper" tier to a nea
On tor, 2010-01-21 at 18:05 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ... is that going
> to apply at the end of the commitfest?
Feature freeze was used to discourage the submission of very big patches
shortly before beta. The commit fest process has IMO al
Tom Lane wrote:
> Now your original posts back in December were okay, since you were
> just letting people know that you intended to work on this over a
> long period. But IIRC you've made more than one post with actual
> code in it that you seemed to be hoping people would review, and
> that I
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2010-01-21 at 17:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> But let me ask this. For which
>> release were you hoping to make this change? If 9.0, then it seems to
>> me that you've missed the deadline, which - according to my
>> understand
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> If you want an example of something I *do* have a process problem
>>> with, it's Kevin Grittner's attempts
>
>> Hmmm Plural? I've made exactly one post on the subject since
>> the CF started,
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If you want an example of something I *do* have a process problem
>> with, it's Kevin Grittner's attempts
> Hmmm Plural? I've made exactly one post on the subject since
> the CF started, unless you count review of Markus's dtester code,
> whic
Tom Lane wrote:
> If you want an example of something I *do* have a process problem
> with, it's Kevin Grittner's attempts
Hmmm Plural? I've made exactly one post on the subject since
the CF started, unless you count review of Markus's dtester code,
which he posted before the CF but didn
Tom Lane wrote:
> If you want an example of something I *do* have a process problem
> with, it's Kevin Grittner's attempts to get people to put a
> significant number of cycles into thinking about true
> serializability.
> Right now is not the time for that to be happening. I've been
> politely
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> But I don't think that should mean everyone has to drop everything when
>> the clock strikes midnight and must now only look at things that the
>> magic commitfest page has pre-approved.
> Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ...
On Jan 21, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ... is that going to apply
> at the end of the commitfest?
>
> I generally agree that we need to have a bit of wiggle room at this stage -
> small and non-controversial items can be allowed t
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
But I don't think that should mean everyone has to drop everything when
the clock strikes midnight and must now only look at things that the
magic commitfest page has pre-approved.
Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ... is that going to
apply at t
On tor, 2010-01-21 at 17:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> But let me ask this. For which
> release were you hoping to make this change? If 9.0, then it seems to
> me that you've missed the deadline, which - according to my
> understanding of the agreed-upon schedule - was six days ago.
By that log
20 matches
Mail list logo
