Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> I think the only other thing we _could_ do is to re-open normal 8.3
> >> development, so we aren't hampering updates to trivial parts of the
> >> code. Many of the patches now in the queue had been developed for months
> >> before 8.3 started, so the hope is that we wouldn't have many more new
> >> large patches, but several small ones we could deal with while we
> >> whittle away at the larger patches during the next few months.
> >> The question is whether it is healthy for us to remain in feature freeze
> >> for months, and if it is unhealthy, what are our options?
> > I don't see any reason development has to stop while the tree is in feature
> > freeze. If it led to patches being ready for review and getting reviewed and
> > committed early in the cycle rather than just before release I think it
> > would
> > actually be extremely healthy.
> If we had multiple dev branches it might be more possible. That has its
> own costs, of course - having a single dev branch makes management much
> easier, and we never have to worry about things like merging.
> Patches seem to be getting larger, more complex, and harder to review.
> That is stressing our processes more than somewhat.
> Short cycles would only make matters worse - the frictional cost of each
> dev cycle is growing. I think at least we have learned not to repeat
> this exercise.
Agreed. Good summary. Let's look at our problems honestly now and find
a direction, rather than pushing them off for later.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend