Re: Release cycle length

From: Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Release cycle length
Date: 2003-11-18 02:26:09
Message-ID: 87u152quny.fsf@asmodeus.mcnaught.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-www

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Personally I am for long release cycles, at least for major releases.
> In fact
> as of 7.4 I think there should possibly be a slow down in releases with more
> incremental releases (minor releases) throughout the year.

That would pretty much mean changing the "minor releases only for
serious bugfixes" philosphy. Is that what you are advocating?

> People are running their companies and lives off of PostgreSQL,
> they should be able to rely on a specific feature set, and support
> from the community for longer.

If 7.3.4 works for you, there's nothing to stop you running it until
the end of time... If you can't patch in bugfixes yourself, you
should be willing to pay for support. Commercial companies like Red
Hat don't support their releases indefinitely for free; why should the
PG community be obligated to?

Also, we very rarely remove features--AUTOCOMMIT on the server is
about the only one I can think of.

-Doug

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-11-18 02:32:56 Re: Release cycle length
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2003-11-18 02:22:12 Re: Release cycle length

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-11-18 02:32:56 Re: Release cycle length
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2003-11-18 02:22:12 Re: Release cycle length