Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DAC69FB774; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:15:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57420-07; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:15:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D7C9FB728; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:15:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22FD848BF01; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:14:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17553-05; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:15:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-89-241-126.eastlink.ca [24.89.241.126]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D7948A31E; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:14:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5A46006B; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:15:11 -0300 (ADT) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:15:11 -0300 From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Stefan Kaltenbrunner , Dave Page cc: PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report Message-ID: <106C3B1BC3370ACF52B59F28@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <4634F25C.3070403@kaltenbrunner.cc> References: <200704270313.l3R3DwF16449@momjian.us> <1177792836.3663.61.camel@silverbirch.site> <46349EF4.2010304@enterprisedb.com> <4634EC25.6010104@postgresql.org> <4634F25C.3070403@kaltenbrunner.cc> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200704/1216 X-Sequence-Number: 102549 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Sunday, April 29, 2007 21:30:36 +0200 Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > not sure I fully agree here - I think we could do a bit better on the > "bug tracking front" but it is a bit unclear if we cn honestly sy that > "the current process" does not work or is not going to scale in the > future. Complex patches need time - sometimes much more time than a > release or even two release cycles - it's unclear if trying to get those > in more agressively (by having more commiters or applying them earlier) > might not actually cause more harm due to -HEAD getting less stable and > causing developers to spend time hunting regressions. re: -HEAD getting less stable ... we wouldn't be adding just anyone as a committer, only those that are trusted to know what they are doing ... even 'slapping in a patch', I would expect it to have some sort of preliminary review by *someone* with a bit of knowledge in that aspect of the code ... - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGNQrf4QvfyHIvDvMRAoUqAKDKZY8rThsQi1vTKeQgq/c4HPIyzQCfe9o2 2fHy763eMw/hxGrMnDwXnLM= =g6E8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----