On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 19:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Plus, for the developers and other people who really need to be > > bleeding-edge, this new plan would result in less-unstable snapshots every > > 2 months with defined feature sets which someone who wanted to run them at > > their own risk could. Which would result in more bug reports, earlier, > > for us (and lots of forwarding the canned > > "milestone-releases-are-not-stable" canned e-mail). > > Hmm, I was not envisioning that we'd produce any sort of "release" > corresponding to these checkpoints. I see it only as a a way to > (a) discipline ourselves to not let patches go unreviewed/uncommitted > for long periods, and (b) encourage developers to submit relatively > small patches rather than enormous six-months-of-work ones. > > Since there are always bugs, and we're certainly not going to schedule a > round of formal beta testing right after each commit-fest, I should > think that tarballs made right after a commit-fest would be particularly > unlikely to be good candidates for non-developer use. > > (Actually, it might be the case that a CVS snap from just *before* > a commit-fest would be the most stable development-cycle code, since > there'd have been time to shake out bugs committed in the previous > fest... but we're even less likely to do beta testing on that.)
Advertising
+1 -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
