On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 09:03:03AM +0200, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
If a feature freeze is made on August 1st or even later it would be ok
because nobody is doing major database changes in summer anyway.
You seem to forget that half of the world is not in summer on August
1st. I admit that
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Personally, I think there are alot of large features that ppl have been
hard at getting complete in time for June 1st that we should stick to it,
else we're going to end up with 'yet another release' delayed in hopes
that the outstanding bugs in Win32
* Handle sync() by opening all file opened since the last
fsync and fsync'ing those
- Tom's got this one, as is the most crucial outstanding part
Yes, this is defintly the largest part of the code missing.
* Win32 installer
- I believe Magnus already has something in this
Yes, it was vague. The question is now that we are a month away, do
we
want to target June 1, mid-June, or July 1.
If I may humbly chime in here...there currently is no binary
packing for the win32 port. Magnus is currently working on
an installer/service manager (dubbed 'longer
Am Freitag, 30. April 2004 12:45 schrieb Magnus Hagander:
A question about this though - do we want the installer source (required
to build the MSI - not the MSI itself, of course) in main CVS?
We don't have any other packaging-related files in our CVS (for various good
reasons), so I don't
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Freitag, 30. April 2004 12:45 schrieb Magnus Hagander:
A question about this though - do we want the installer source (required
to build the MSI - not the MSI itself, of course) in main CVS?
We don't have any other packaging-related files in
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Freitag, 30. April 2004 12:45 schrieb Magnus Hagander:
A question about this though - do we want the installer source (required
to build the MSI - not the MSI itself, of course) in main CVS?
We don't have any
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:30:12PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
June 1st, let's do beta for 7.5 and then branch onto 8.0, with 8.0 key'd
to the Win32 Native port being finished ...
I seem to remember the same argument at 7.4 time. I don't use
Windows, I think it's a bletcherous system, but
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Personally, I think there are alot of large features that ppl have been
hard at getting complete in time for June 1st that we should stick to it,
else we're going to end up with 'yet another release' delayed in hopes
that the outstanding bugs in Win32 will get fixed in a
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*If* June 1st comes along, and Win32 isn't ready, there is nothing wrong
with freezing the code *except* for a pending Win32 patch ...
Yeah there is ...
In the first place it's unfair to other developers to make schedule
slips
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc is concerned that folks will not work hard to meet a deadline and
will slack off if we push thing to July 1.
I don't think I'm so muc worried about that as under-estimating the amount
of time required to finish them ... its not like *that's* never
The other point, especially about Win32, is to see if we can
spread the load a bit. Perhaps Claudio, Magnus, Merlin and Bruce
should start trying to farm out specific tasks.
Here are the tasks, off the Win32 page, I see as necessary to drop in:
* Handle sync() by opening all file
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc is concerned that folks will not work hard to meet a deadline and
will slack off if we push thing to July 1.
I don't think I'm so muc worried about that as under-estimating the amount
of time required to finish them
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
In the first place it's unfair to other developers to make schedule
slips at the last moment, and especially to *plan* to do so.
Isn't it equally unfair to slip the scheduale that developers that have
been
Win32 has continued on a steady pace for six months now.
Be honest ... 6 months ago, did you believe the Win32 work would have
taken 6 months? How many of the current issues could you have
anticipated? How many will crop up in the next month?
FWIW, the backend porting effort started
Claudio Natoli wrote:
Win32 has continued on a steady pace for six months now.
Be honest ... 6 months ago, did you believe the Win32 work would have
taken 6 months? How many of the current issues could you have
anticipated? How many will crop up in the next month?
FWIW, the
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
In the first place it's unfair to other developers to make schedule
slips at the last moment, and especially to *plan* to do so.
Isn't it equally unfair to slip the scheduale that developers
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
I guess my point is really do you want to freeze on June 1 if *none* of
these features are done?
No, I agree that that would be foolish ... but there has also been alot
done on the code over the past few months that even *one* of those
features should be
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
I guess my point is really do you want to freeze on June 1 if *none* of
these features are done?
No, I agree that that would be foolish ... but there has also been alot
done on the code over the past few months that even *one*
Claudio Natoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's my 2c. I don't see anything that can't make a June 1 deadline
(assuming we are expected to keep to it! :-)... the only unknown for me is
the sync/fsync code Tom is doing, only as I have no idea where he is up to.
I've been AWOL for a month, but
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
I know it's a chicken and egg problem, do we set a date for developers
to shoot for, or do shoot for specific features and choose a date from
there. I think there can no hard and fast rule on this, it depends on
the
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
I guess my point is really do you want to freeze on June 1 if *none* of
these features are done?
No, I agree that that would be foolish ... but there has also been alot
done on
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
I guess my point is really do you want to freeze on June 1 if *none* of
these features are done?
No, I agree that that would be foolish ... but
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
And if we always set deadlines independent of the required development
time, then we may never get a win32 port or any other major feature that
takes a little more time and attention.
Actually, that one doesn't hold ... it just means that we
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
But we don't want to have all our developers controlled by one feature
being completed. It isn't fair. They should get a good warning about
freeze starting.
Nor is it fair to extend the development cycle indefinitely waiting for
that one feature in
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
But we don't want to have all our developers controlled by one feature
being completed. It isn't fair. They should get a good warning about
freeze starting.
Nor is it fair to extend the development cycle indefinitely
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes, it was vague. The question is now that we are a month away, do we
want to target June 1, mid-June, or July 1.
Some are saying that once Win32 is ready, it will justify a release even
if the other features are not ready.
I think we should have this conversation once the
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Right now, the feature freeze is tentative for 1st of June, which has been
thrown around a few times already ...
If it has I've missed it - always seemed somewhat vaguer to me.
Yes, it
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Right now, the feature freeze is tentative for 1st of June, which has been
thrown around a few times already ...
If it has I've missed it - always
Merlin Moncure wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes, it was vague. The question is now that we are a month away, do
we
want to target June 1, mid-June, or July 1.
If I may humbly chime in here...there currently is no binary packing for
the win32 port. Magnus is currently working on an
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:26:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
o nested transactions (Alvaro)
Has submitted patches that are under review. He has the nesting of
BEGIN done, and storage manager subtransaction handling. I think he
needs to do pg_subtrans system table and error recovery.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, if Win32 doesn't complete by June 1, do we still do the feature
freeze? I don't want to be adding features after the freeze, that is
for sure. When we have done that in the past, it has caused problems
because some stuff gets in to make the system unstable, but other
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:26:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
o nested transactions (Alvaro)
Has submitted patches that are under review. He has the nesting of
BEGIN done, and storage manager subtransaction handling. I think he
needs to do pg_subtrans
Tom Lane wrote:
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes, it was vague. The question is now that we are a month away, do
we want to target June 1, mid-June, or July 1.
... In short, speaking strictly from a win32
perspective, a June 1 date will probably be
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes, it was vague. The question is now that we are a month away, do
we want to target June 1, mid-June, or July 1.
... In short, speaking strictly from a win32
perspective, a June 1 date will probably be missed.
Fair enough.
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, if Win32 doesn't complete by June 1, do we still do the feature
freeze? I don't want to be adding features after the freeze, that is
for sure. When we have done that in the past, it has caused problems
because some stuff gets in to
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, if Win32 doesn't complete by June 1, do we still do the feature
freeze? I don't want to be adding features after the freeze, that is
[...]
As I remember, we decided that we should not make decisions to extend
the feature freeze date just before the freeze date
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Merlin Moncure wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes, it was vague. The question is now that we are a month away, do
we
want to target June 1, mid-June, or July 1.
If I may humbly chime in here...there currently is no binary packing for
the
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
No. We tried that in the past and we ended up extending it in pieces
several times. The effect was that we delayed feature freeze by a month
or two, and other features never got developed in that timeframe. I
remember SMP fixes for 7.3 as causing
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
I know it's a chicken and egg problem, do we set a date for developers
to shoot for, or do shoot for specific features and choose a date from
there. I think there can no hard and fast rule on this, it depends on
the feature and the desire to
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I wonder if we should just pick July 1 because there is good expectation
based on current progress that Win32 will be done by June 15, which
would be the next cuttoff date. Of course we can wait until May 15 and
then decide.
Start of summer
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, if Win32 doesn't complete by June 1, do we still do the feature
freeze? I don't want to be adding features after the freeze, that is
[...]
As I remember, we decided that we should not make decisions to extend
the
-Original Message-
From: Merlin Moncure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 12:45 PM
To: Bruce Momjian
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Call for 7.5 feature completion
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, if Win32 doesn't complete by June 1, do we still
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Simon Riggs wrote:
What I would add is: if PITR and Win32 do make it into the release, I
would strongly urge for an extended beta period. It would not prove good
press if 100,000 new Windows users tripped over on various issues, nor
even 1 press-worthy user was unable to
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 20:50, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Merlin Moncure wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes, it was vague. The question is now that we are a month away, do
we
want to target June 1, mid-June, or July 1.
If I may humbly
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Merlin Moncure wrote:
So I suggest (my choices are of course subjective):
Dividing
win32 'should fix' (installer, /contrib, etc.)
win32 'must fix' (psql query cancel, 1970 dates, non-cygwin regression)
actually, IMHO, some of
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*If* June 1st comes along, and Win32 isn't ready, there is nothing wrong
with freezing the code *except* for a pending Win32 patch ...
Yeah there is ...
In the first place it's unfair to other developers to make schedule
slips at the last moment, and
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*If* June 1st comes along, and Win32 isn't ready, there is nothing wrong
with freezing the code *except* for a pending Win32 patch ...
Yeah there is ...
In the first place it's unfair to other developers to
201 - 248 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
