Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D309FB2CA;
	Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:54:47 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 24432-02; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:54:39 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from community1.commandprompt.com (host-254.commandprompt.net
	[207.173.203.254])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583469FB1BE;
	Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:54:44 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [192.168.10.103] (cpe-075-177-135-163.nc.res.rr.com
	[75.177.135.163])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by community1.commandprompt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E7E246DC2;
	Mon, 30 Apr 2007 04:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4635D900.7030402@dunslane.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:54:40 -0400
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.8.0.10) Gecko/20070301 Fedora/1.0.8-0.6.2.fc6 pango-text
	SeaMonkey/1.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
CC: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>,
	Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report
References: <200704270313.l3R3DwF16449@momjian.us>
	<1177792836.3663.61.camel@silverbirch.site>
	<46349EF4.2010304@enterprisedb.com>
	<4634EC25.6010104@postgresql.org> <46352C6D.1020402@dunslane.net>
	<B23D2C6F34DA6B8F44A5C205@ganymede.hub.org>
In-Reply-To: <B23D2C6F34DA6B8F44A5C205@ganymede.hub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200704/1240
X-Sequence-Number: 102573



Marc G. Fournier wrote
>   
>> patches held over from feature freeze from the previous
>> release will be reviewed within two months of the tree re-opening
>>     
>
> a. why 2 months?  shouldn't they be given priority, period?
>   

Yes, but they don't always seem to get it.

> b. what happens after 2 months?  we delete them?
>
>
>
>   

Of course not. What I am suggesting is that we set ourselves review 
targets. The if we start to get in danger of missing them the authors 
and/or anyone else can legitimately start ringing alarm bells.

cheers

andrew