| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: commit fests |
| Date: | 2010-01-23 00:50:50 |
| Message-ID: | 26071.1264207850@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On fre, 2010-01-22 at 18:05 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Any ideas?
> The lower bound on the release cycle is about 12 months right now
> because we intend to support old versions for 5 years, and 5 or 6
> branches at once is about the most anyone can handle. That formula is
> tough to change.
Another problem is that it's very debatable whether users (as opposed
to developers) want a fast release cycle. Some of that reluctance to
update might dissipate if we had a better upgrade-in-place story, but
by no means all of it. People don't want to have to retest their
applications every six months.
I agree with trying to cut down the submission-to-commit delay, but
the release cycle length is not primarily determined by what patch
authors would like ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Mielke | 2010-01-23 00:54:16 | Re: 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-01-23 00:26:31 | Re: commit fests |