[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Berkus) writes:
> Simon,
>> We can issue a provisional date. We could also say "at least 6 months
>> after release date of 8.3". I'm sure there's other options too.
> I'm going to suggest 4 months after 8.3.  8.3 was supposed to be a *short* 
> release so that we could move our calendar around.  HOT and some of the 
> other unexpected massive patches prevented that.  Again, we have enough in 
> the "deferred for 8.4" queue that if we finished up only that it would 
> qualify as a release.  
> So my thought is, shoot for a short release so that we can get away from 
> summer consolidations and December releases, and extend the cycle if 
> someone dumps another 50,000 lines of attractive patches on us.
> In fact, I could see doing a "no-catalog-changes, no major patches we don't 
> already know about, 6-month release".  It would reset our cycle and get 
> PL/proxy, DSM, clustered indexes, etc. out the door.   It could mean 
> turning away patches which look attractive, though, so the whole community 
> has to be into this.

There are good things about that idea.

There would also be good things about picking a somewhat *longer*
cycle in that we already just had a cycle where the "feature freeze"
period was supposedly a short one, which precluded implementing
anything requiring more planning.

- It seems at least somewhat unfair to burden the 8.4 cycle with the
  "sins" of the 8.3 cycle.

- There is the risk that even with the restriction, 8.4 might still
  not be a short cycle, which would make the attempt futile.  

- And would we then say "hey, we need for 8.5 to have a shortened
  cycle too"?
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc"))
Space   is   big.  Really    big.   You   won't   believe  how  vastly
mind-bogglingly big it is.  I mean, you may think it's a long way down
the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.  Listen....

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to