Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well, if Win32 doesn't complete by June 1, do we still do the feature
> freeze?  I don't want to be adding features after the freeze, that is
[...]
> As I remember, we decided that we should not make decisions to extend
> the feature freeze date just before the freeze date because it causes
> people to stop doing development, then we extend.  I think we should
go
> another week or two then decide if we should stay to June 1, and if we
> don't, we should schedule for July 1.  Extending it by a week at a
time,
> and almost before the deadline, has caused considerable waste of time
in
> the past.

I agree 100%.  Right now the win32 side doesn't qualify for beta...just
the date issue alone is a pretty big deal, IMO.  There are pending
patches for only about 50% of the outstanding issues.   A tremendous
amount of work has been done, but there is still quite a bit to be done
to meet basic QC guidelines.

So I suggest (my choices are of course subjective):
Dividing 
win32 'should fix' (installer, /contrib, etc.) 
win32 'must fix' (psql query cancel, <1970 dates, non-cygwin regression)

Apply freeze date to the 'must fix' items.  'Should fix' items can be
delayed until the beta, dot release, or beyond.  My personal estimation
on completion date depends on what gets put in which category.  If
everything is designated 'must fix', I think July 1 is practical.

Merlin








Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:45:27 -0400
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>
Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Merlin Moncure wrote:

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Well, if Win32 doesn't complete by June 1, do we still do the feature
> > freeze?  I don't want to be adding features after the freeze, that is
> [...]
> > As I remember, we decided that we should not make decisions to extend
> > the feature freeze date just before the freeze date because it causes
> > people to stop doing development, then we extend.  I think we should
> go
> > another week or two then decide if we should stay to June 1, and if we
> > don't, we should schedule for July 1.  Extending it by a week at a
> time,
> > and almost before the deadline, has caused considerable waste of time
> in
> > the past.
>
> I agree 100%.  Right now the win32 side doesn't qualify for beta...just
> the date issue alone is a pretty big deal, IMO.  There are pending
> patches for only about 50% of the outstanding issues.   A tremendous
> amount of work has been done, but there is still quite a bit to be done
> to meet basic QC guidelines.
>
> So I suggest (my choices are of course subjective):
> Dividing
> win32 'should fix' (installer, /contrib, etc.)
> win32 'must fix' (psql query cancel, <1970 dates, non-cygwin regression)

actually, IMHO, some of these should be classified as bug fixes, assuming
that the patches are already in the source tree, and don't affect the
feature freeze in any way, only the release ...


----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:37:16 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> So I suggest (my choices are of course subjective):
>> Dividing
>> win32 'should fix' (installer, /contrib, etc.)
>> win32 'must fix' (psql query cancel, <1970 dates, non-cygwin regression)

> actually, IMHO, some of these should be classified as bug fixes, assuming
> that the patches are already in the source tree, and don't affect the
> feature freeze in any way, only the release ...

The issue is really whether the "bug fixes" are major enough to
invalidate any previous beta testing.  For example, it would be
unreasonable to go beta with the "<1970 dates" issue unresolved, because
what we are talking about doing to fix that involves plopping in a
pretty big chunk of new (to us anyway) code.  And since we plan to use
that code on all platforms, it needs beta testing everywhere.  Another
example is the sync/fsync changes we are talking about making --- that's
pretty basic and it'll need QA on all platforms not just win32.

It would be reasonable to go beta with open minor issues that we
expect to be fixable by localized patches.  (But on the other hand,
why wouldn't such issues be resolved before then?)

So I'm not sure that "should fix vs must fix" is the appropriate
classification.  "Small/localized fix vs nontrivial change"
is more what I'm worried about.

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:46:11 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion 