| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-core <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release |
| Date: | 2015-05-29 21:04:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20150529210459.GH26863@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-05-29 16:37:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, maybe we ought to call it an alpha not a beta, but I think we ought
> to put out some kind of release that we can encourage people to test.
I also do think it's important that we put out a beta (or alpha)
relatively soon. Both because we actually need input to find out what
works and what doesn't and also because it pushes us to tie up loose
ends.
A beta with open items isn't that bad a thing? There's many bigger
projects doing 4-8 betas releases before a major one; and most of them
have open items at the indvidual beta's release times.
I think we should define/document it so that there's no hard goal of
being compatible for beta releases and that the compatibility goal
starts with the first release candidate, and not the betas.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-29 21:08:21 | Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-29 21:00:09 | Re: 9.5 release notes may need ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING compatibility notice for FDW authors |