On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> 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 freeze" to be the point at > which we stopped *committing* new features, not the point at which it > was too late to *submit* them. So by that definition feature freeze > starts at the end of the last CF.
OK, fair enough. > I agree with Peter that things are a bit different in the CF process. > Rather than a binary frozen-or-not state, we now have a gradual > congealing (if you will), where the size of an acceptable new feature > gets smaller as we get towards the end of the development cycle. Yeah, and I have no problem with that. I think I've already beaten this horse to death, though, so I won't re-explain what I do think. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
