On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:29:58 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'd suggest we have multiple checkpoints during the cycle. > > Checkpoint is a "patch queue blitz" where we stop developing and > > reduce the queue to nothing. Perhaps a two-week period where > > everybody helps reduce the queue, not just Tom and Bruce. Every > > outstanding patch gets told what they need to do in order to get it > > committed. FF is then just the last in a series of checkpoints. > > Suggest we do a checkpoint every 2 months. > > I like this idea ... As do I. It will also allow us to decrease the amount of changes that have to be reviewed for regressions during testing. I know I just love it when a customer breaks something and I ask what changed and it is 56 different things ;) My question is.. with a checkpoint every 2 months, would it make it very easy to release every 6 (or 4 or 3 or 9) months? I am not saying we "have" to but it certainly opens up the possibility to the argument I made. With a 2 months checkpoint, we can release when we want. When we feel we have enough and not have a ginormous back log of patches to go through. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the > PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
