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


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/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to