On Saturday 23 October 2010 01:00:45, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 09:35:30PM +0200, Daniel Fischer wrote:
Discussion period: one week, until 29th October 2010 (I'd like to see it in 7.0).
I don't think that's a good reason for an abnormally short discussion period.
In general, the more patches we push into the 7.0 branch, the greater the chance we regress, which means either longer until we can release it (if we spot it in time), lots of extra effort to put out another release (if we don't), or having to live with the regression for a few months (if we don't think it's worth putting in the effort to quickly do another release). And the probability of a patch causing a regression is higher if the process is rushed.
Well, my idea was to get a quick conclusion so there might be enough time for testing for the change to have a fighting chance to get in.
It's great to see work on improving performance of the libraries, but after we've started putting out release candidates is not the best time to be doing it if you want the changes to get into that release.
I had never looked at the standard libraries' code before to see whether I could improve it because I didn't expect I could. I only stumbled across the first thing a few days before the release candidate came out. Then I started looking and found a couple more, I'd just like the major things to be available as soon as possible. If they don't make it because HQ has not enough time to test and verify, okay, bad luck.
Thanks Ian
Cheers, Daniel