On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
>> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
>> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent 
>> status
>> update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> Based on the ongoing discussion, this is really looking like it's
> actually a fix that needs to be back-patched to 9.6 rather than a PG10
> open item.  I don't have any issue with keeping it as an open item
> though, just mentioning it.  I'll provide another status update on or
> before Monday, July 31st.
> I'll get to work on the back-patch and try to draft up something to go
> into the release notes for 9.6.4.

Whether this is going to be back-patched or not, you should do
something about it quickly, because we're wrapping a new beta and a
full set of back-branch releases next week.  I'm personally hoping
that what follows beta3 will be rc1, but if we have too much churn
after beta3 we'll end up with a beta4, which could end up slipping the
whole release cycle.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to