Re: 9.1 Beta

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Judging by the number of new threads about development for 9.2, I
> think its time we declared 9.1 Beta. I just had a conversation with
> some Debian developers about how PostgreSQL 9.0 got pulled out of
> their release because we delayed by 3 weeks. So we missed our slot to
> deliver useful new features to our very best supporters by 2 years. I
> really hope that was deliberate.

We do *not* make release decisions based on Debian's schedule. Even if
we wanted to, going beta is hardly likely to affect their decisions.

The correct question is whether we're ready for beta, and I would say
the answer is clearly no, unless you have a pretty low standard for what
"ready for beta" means. Perhaps it would be suitable to discuss what
the standard for that really ought to be; but I don't agree in the
slightest that we ought to decide based on predetermined calendar dates
rather than the state of the code.

> If we had a hard date for feature freeze, lets have a hard date for
> Beta of +2 months (next time), and +2.5 months now. (I know +1 month
> was suggested, well that's just unrealistic). Beta is a great time to
> resolve difficult decisions, by opening the floor to wider debate and
> feedback.

The reason we get wider testing during beta is that people have some
confidence (perhaps misplaced) that the database won't eat their data.
Releasing alpha-grade code and calling it beta isn't going to get us
wider testing ... at least, not more than once.

regards, tom lane