Re: commit fests (was Re: primary key error message)
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-01-22T16:19:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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 understood "feature freeze" to be the point at which we stopped *committing* new features, not the point at which it was too late to *submit* them. So by that definition feature freeze starts at the end of the last CF. I agree with Peter that things are a bit different in the CF process. Rather than a binary frozen-or-not state, we now have a gradual congealing (if you will), where the size of an acceptable new feature gets smaller as we get towards the end of the development cycle. regards, tom lane