From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.5 release timetable, again |
Date: | 2009-08-29 17:05:07 |
Message-ID: | 200908291705.n7TH57u03128@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> Both committers and non-committers are currently suffering from the
> fact that there is not a lot of time in the year which is set aside
> for development, i.e. neither CommitFest-time nor beta-time. To fix
> this problem, we can:
>
> 1. Make CommitFests shorter.
> 2. Make CommitFests less frequent.
> 3. Continue developing during CommitFests.
> 4. Make beta cycles shorter.
> 5. Make beta cycles less frequent (i.e. lengthen the release cycle).
> 6. Continue developing during beta.
>
> I believe (1) to be completely impractical and (3) to be
> self-defeating. I suspect (2) will backfire badly. That doesn't
> leave us with a lot of options. We can certainly do (5), but the
> downside is that features that get committed won't hit release for a
> very long time. I and others have suggested a couple of possible
> approaches toward (4) or (6), such as changing the way we do release
> notes, adding more regression tests to give us more (not perfect)
> confidence that the release is solid, and/or branching the tree during
> beta. None of those ideas have gotten a single vote of confidence
> from you or Bruce. What's your suggestion?
Another solution would be to make major releases less frequent.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-08-29 17:07:07 | Re: 8.5 release timetable, again |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-08-29 17:05:00 | Re: clang's static checker report. |