--On 22. Januar 2010 15:40:58 +0200 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net
wrote:
Beta is still the definite cutoff; and the closer we get to
beta, the smaller the acceptable changes become. I think that formula
basically applies throughout the entire cycle.
For someone like me it's hard to
Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On 22. Januar 2010 15:40:58 +0200 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net
wrote:
Beta is still the definite cutoff; and the closer we get to
beta, the smaller the acceptable changes become. I think that formula
basically applies throughout the entire cycle.
For someone
On tor, 2010-01-21 at 18:05 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ... is that going
to apply at the end of the commitfest?
Feature freeze was used to discourage the submission of very big patches
shortly before beta. The commit fest process has IMO
On tor, 2010-01-21 at 19:45 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, that does seem to be endorsing a sort of two-tiered system.
In those words, yes, it's a multi-tiered system. The aim of the commit
fests is to make the lower tier more effective, but not necessarily to
bring the upper tier to a near
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2010-01-21 at 18:05 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ... is that going
to apply at the end of the commitfest?
Feature freeze was used to discourage the submission of
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2010-01-21 at 18:05 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ... is that going
to apply at the end of the commitfest?
Feature freeze was
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 09:10 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm not sure whether you're stating a position that's been agreed to
by -core or some other group, or just expressing your own opinion, but
I think feature freeze should be the beginning of the last CommitFest,
not the end.
Was is
2010/1/22 Devrim GÜNDÜZ dev...@gunduz.org:
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 09:10 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm not sure whether you're stating a position that's been agreed to
by -core or some other group, or just expressing your own opinion, but
I think feature freeze should be the beginning of the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I'm not sure whether you're stating a position that's been agreed to
by -core or some other group, or just expressing your own opinion, but
I think feature freeze should be the beginning of the last CommitFest,
not the end.
I think traditionally we
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I'm not sure whether you're stating a position that's been agreed to
by -core or some other group, or just expressing your own opinion, but
I think feature freeze should be the
On tor, 2010-01-21 at 17:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
But let me ask this. For which
release were you hoping to make this change? If 9.0, then it seems to
me that you've missed the deadline, which - according to my
understanding of the agreed-upon schedule - was six days ago.
By that logic,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
But I don't think that should mean everyone has to drop everything when
the clock strikes midnight and must now only look at things that the
magic commitfest page has pre-approved.
Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ... is that going to
apply at
On Jan 21, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ... is that going to apply
at the end of the commitfest?
I generally agree that we need to have a bit of wiggle room at this stage -
small and non-controversial items can be allowed to
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
But I don't think that should mean everyone has to drop everything when
the clock strikes midnight and must now only look at things that the
magic commitfest page has pre-approved.
Well, we used to have the idea of a
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If you want an example of something I *do* have a process problem
with, it's Kevin Grittner's attempts to get people to put a
significant number of cycles into thinking about true
serializability.
Right now is not the time for that to be happening. I've
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If you want an example of something I *do* have a process problem
with, it's Kevin Grittner's attempts
Hmmm Plural? I've made exactly one post on the subject since
the CF started, unless you count review of Markus's dtester code,
which he posted
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If you want an example of something I *do* have a process problem
with, it's Kevin Grittner's attempts
Hmmm Plural? I've made exactly one post on the subject since
the CF started, unless you count
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If you want an example of something I *do* have a process problem
with, it's Kevin Grittner's attempts
Hmmm Plural? I've made
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2010-01-21 at 17:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
But let me ask this. For which
release were you hoping to make this change? If 9.0, then it seems to
me that you've missed the deadline, which - according to my
Tom Lane wrote:
Now your original posts back in December were okay, since you were
just letting people know that you intended to work on this over a
long period. But IIRC you've made more than one post with actual
code in it that you seemed to be hoping people would review, and
that I
20 matches
Mail list logo
