Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jYYQ5-0004BT-BX for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 17:10:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jYYQ4-0006jl-6L for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 17:10:16 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jYYQ3-0006je-Vl for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 17:10:15 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jYYQ1-0001Hy-DQ for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 17:10:15 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 04CHA8Ud028588; Tue, 12 May 2020 13:10:09 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: Robert Haas , Alvaro Herrera , Alexander Lakhin , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: gcov coverage data not full with immediate stop In-reply-to: References: <20200511034243.GA5671@alvherre.pgsql> <28859.1589172997@sss.pgh.pa.us> <29504.1589227471@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Tue, 12 May 2020 10:06:22 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <28586.1589303408.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 13:10:08 -0400 Message-ID: <28587.1589303408@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:04 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah. Traditionally we've waited till the start of the next commitfest >> (which I'm assuming is July 1, for lack of an Ottawa dev meeting to decide >> differently). But it seems like things are slow enough that perhaps >> we could branch earlier, like June 1, and give the committers a chance >> to deal with some of their own stuff before starting the CF. > The RMT discussed this question informally yesterday. The consensus is > that we should wait and see what the early feedback from Beta 1 is > before making a final decision. An earlier June 1 branch date is an > idea that certainly has some merit, but we'd like to put off making a > final decision on that for at least another week, and possibly as long > as two weeks. > Can that easily be accommodated? There's no real lead time needed AFAICS: when we are ready to branch, we can just do it. So sure, let's wait till the end of May to decide. If things look bad then, we could reconsider again mid-June. regards, tom lane