On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqlad...@geoff.dj> wrote: > On 8 June 2015 at 16:01, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqlad...@geoff.dj> >> wrote: >> > Wow! I never knew there were all these people out there who would be >> > rushing >> > to help test if only the PG developers released alpha versions. It's >> > funny >> > how they never used to do it when those alphas were done. >> >> That's probably overplaying your hand a little bit (and it sounds a >> bit catty, too). > > > I agree. The responses I had written yesterday but didn't send were much > worse. > > Mainly because I think it's quite an attitude to take that open-source > developers should put extra time into building RPMs of development versions > rather than testers waiting 5 minutes while their machines compile. > Ohmygosh, you have to rpm install a bunch of -devel stuff? What a massive > hardship.
It's not about the 5 minutes of compile time, it's about the signalling. Just *when* is git ready for testing? You don't know from the outside. I do lurk here a lot and still am unsure quite often. Even simply releasing an alpha *tarball* would be useful enough. What is needed is the signal to test, rather than a fully-built package. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
