Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > I would also suggest that 8.3 be labelled a dev release. We have a
> > > reasonable number of fairly invasive patches, so we need a mechanism to
> > > integrate them with reduced risk.
> > 
> > I would rather like to see patches we don't are confident enough in to
> > be dropped from 8.3 and moved to 8.4 - the goal should not be jamming as
> > much patches into a single release s we can (because they are proposed)
> > but rather putting those in that meet the quality bar and we trust in.
> Yeah; the agreement we had was that 8.3 would be a short release.  So if
> we're going to take too long to review and apply the outstanding patches
> we have, we should rather push them to 8.4, get 8.3 released quickly and
> then go on with the regular annual release.  The postponed patches can
> be reviewed and committed early in 8.4, instead of at the last minute in
> 8.3.  Sounds like a smarter, safer move.

Because we are dealing with this now, and not later, we have time to
give all patches the appropriate review time --- we don't need to panic
yet and start throwing patches to 8.4, especially since we might have
even more patches for 8.4.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to