On 9/18/25 3:32 PM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 03:25:08PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> As I see it, while our feature freeze isn't perfect -- mostly because
>> too many things get slipped in at the last minute that aren't really
>> in great shape -- it's a lot better than the old process where nobody
>> really knew what the deadline was. Similarly here, we should just
>> agree on some deadline for when the PR and major feature tasks should
>> get completed; and if you or whoever don't think you're going to be
>> able to make those timelines, then we can either decide on someone
>> else to do it or we can decide to move the deadline. Either way, if we
>> do that, we're operating by consensus and a shared set of
>> expectations.
>
> I think we ought to set a deadline of, say, beta2 or beta3 and have the RMT
> responsible for making sure it happens. Either of those releases would
> still give us at least a month or so to address feedback before GA, but
> they aren't so early as to require lots of rework due to last-minute
> changes.
I'm OK in theory with pulling in the deadline for the PR and major
features - there is a bunch of work that has to happen after the PR that
is fairly time consuming (translations, website work, feature matrix,
etc.). But let's also look at this holistically, because we had a big
crunch this year with Beta 1 + .dev + out-of-cycle releases that make
this a big crunch.
So, let's have the discussion, but after this GA but before PG19 beta1 :)
Jonathan
