On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:16:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> I think to really address that problem, you need to think about shorter > >> release cycles overall, like every 6 months. �Otherwise, the current 12 > >> to 14 month horizon is just too long psychologically. > > > I agree. I am in favor of a shorter release cycle. > > I'm not. I don't think there is any demand among *users* (as opposed to > developers) for more than one major PG release a year. It's hard enough > to get people to migrate that often.
In fact, I predict that the observed behavior would be for even more end users to start skipping releases. Some already do - it's common not to upgrade unless there's a feature you really need, but for those who do stay on the 'current' upgrade path, you'll lose some who can't afford to spend more than one integration-testing round a year. Ross -- Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reeds...@rice.edu Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166 Connexions http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665 Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005 GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
