Tom Lane wrote: > We should also think about what exactly we mean by "feature freeze". > I've been using it as a shorthand for "we don't think we'll need any > more major code changes". But depending on how high-level your notion > of "feature" is, it could be that fairly major code changes could still > be acceptable. For instance if "feature" == "Win32 native port" then > all of the work still needed for the Win32 port might be argued to be > acceptable as post-feature-freeze work. (I don't think this is actually > sensible, mind you, since it would be silly to stop other feature > development while Win32 still needs so much work. My point is just that > we haven't defined "feature freeze" very well.) > > In the past there has been little if any daylight between feature freeze > and start of beta --- in fact, IIRC we did not distinguish these > concepts at all until the last release or two. It wouldn't be a bad > idea to try to nail down the terms of discussion a bit better.
As I remember, feature freeze means no new features, just fixes, and beta means release of the first beta that we want for wide testing. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
