Re: Heroku early upgrade is raising serious questions

From: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jonathan(dot)katz(at)excoventures(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Heroku early upgrade is raising serious questions
Date: 2013-04-08 18:56:52
Message-ID: 5A951C2A-6078-46BD-87EB-0085A9D800C3@excoventures.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

>
> On 04/08/2013 11:49 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Josh - I think your points are valid concerning the vetting of who would
>> be included in early releases. I believe the best way to address who
>> would be on that list is having a committee to vet those applications -
>> I believe that is similar to how other OSS communities handle it. I do
>> not think the amount of submissions for requesting early access would be
>> so great that we would need a full-time team to maintain it, and I think
>> most of us have a good idea already about which types of organizations
>> truly would need an early access release.
>>
>> With that said, if there are no overwhelming objections over the next 36
>> hours, I can submit a patch to our security policy on the website using
>> the language that is in the wiki above.
>
> Since it is -core that primarily decides when things will be released, it seems that we would need their approval for this policy?

Well, that would be valid. Could someone in -core please put the policy through the proper procedural work for approval?

Jonathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2013-04-08 18:59:01 Re: elephant logo in OFM format?
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2013-04-08 18:53:58 Re: Heroku early upgrade is raising serious questions