On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 11:30 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well, they can just grab nightly snapshots and test, right? I don't
> think a beta is fundamentally different from a nightly snapshot,
> source-code wise.
There is only one difference: the signal to re-test.
Most people read "new beta" a
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 11:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > We're currently at 4 weeks since last beta, with no new beta in sight.
>
> Eh?
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01649.php
> You can hardly claim to have not seen it.
Yes, completely wrong. A sun
"Marc G. Fournier" writes:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I find myself entirely unimpressed by proposals to make releases
>> according to some rigid schedule that takes no account of whether
>> packaging manpower is actually available.
> How many beta testers out there *rely* on a p
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" writes:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, they can just grab nightly snapshots and test, right? I don't
think a beta is fundamentally different from a nightly snapshot,
source-code wise.
doesn't really give a good refer
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> > I find myself entirely unimpressed by proposals to make releases
>> > according to some rigid schedule that takes no account of whether
>> > packaging manpower is actuall
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> My guess would be "most of them".
>
> Do we not have any stats on # of beta downloads per package type? I use
> FreeBSD ports when installing production, but when testing non-released code
"Marc G. Fournier" writes:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Well, they can just grab nightly snapshots and test, right? I don't
>> think a beta is fundamentally different from a nightly snapshot,
>> source-code wise.
> doesn't really give a good reference point for testing purposes
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
My guess would be "most of them".
Do we not have any stats on # of beta downloads per package type? I use
FreeBSD ports when installing production, but when testing non-released
code, I generally use the source code itself and build ...
Mar
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
I find myself entirely unimpressed by proposals to make releases
according to some rigid schedule that takes no account of whether
packaging manpower is actually available.
How many beta t
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > I find myself entirely unimpressed by proposals to make releases
> > according to some rigid schedule that takes no account of whether
> > packaging manpower is actually available.
>
> How many beta testers out there *rely* on
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
I find myself entirely unimpressed by proposals to make releases
according to some rigid schedule that takes no account of whether
packaging manpower is actually available.
How many beta testers out there *rely* on a package to do their testing?
I'm not s
Simon Riggs writes:
> We're currently at 4 weeks since last beta, with no new beta in sight.
Eh?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01649.php
You can hardly claim to have not seen it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-h
"Marc G. Fournier" writes:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 31 May 2010 09:33, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> We're currently at 4 weeks since last beta, with no new beta in sight.
>>
>> My understanding was beta 2 would be out on 7th June. Is that changing?
> Yes, but Simon is correct i
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 15:14 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 31 May 2010 09:33, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>
> >> We're currently at 4 weeks since last beta, with no new beta in sight.
> >
> > My understanding was beta 2 would be out on 7th June. Is
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 31 May 2010 09:33, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> We're currently at 4 weeks since last beta, with no new beta in sight.
>
> My understanding was beta 2 would be out on 7th June. Is that changing?
No. It's very much in sight on my calendar :-)
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Thom Brown wrote:
On 31 May 2010 09:33, Simon Riggs wrote:
We're currently at 4 weeks since last beta, with no new beta in sight.
My understanding was beta 2 would be out on 7th June. Is that changing?
Yes, but Simon is correct in that 4-5 weeks between betas is a lo
On 31 May 2010 09:33, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> We're currently at 4 weeks since last beta, with no new beta in sight.
My understanding was beta 2 would be out on 7th June. Is that changing?
Thom
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscr
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 16:19 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Assuming we want a release Postgres 9.0 by mid-August, here is how the
> timetable would look:
>
> Need RC release to be stable for 1-2 weeks before final
> RC must be released by August 1
> Beta must be stable for
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Thoughts on a few of the remaining items:
>
>> Should we revert the default output format for bytea to the old style
>> before shipping 9.0.0? - Consensus seems to be "no", thus no action is
>> required.
>
> I think we shou
Robert Haas writes:
> Thoughts on a few of the remaining items:
> Should we revert the default output format for bytea to the old style
> before shipping 9.0.0? - Consensus seems to be "no", thus no action is
> required.
I think we should leave that there for awhile, though I agree it's
likely t
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> This is a really short list.
Thoughts on a few of the remaining items:
Type Mismatch Error in Set Returning Functions - tgl says this is a
deliberate change per link I just added to the wiki. do we think more
is required here to prevent cran
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Assuming we want a release Postgres 9.0 by mid-August, here is how the
> timetable would look:
>
> Need RC release to be stable for 1-2 weeks before final
> RC must be released by August 1
> Beta must be stable fo
Assuming we want a release Postgres 9.0 by mid-August, here is how the
timetable would look:
Need RC release to be stable for 1-2 weeks before final
RC must be released by August 1
Beta must be stable for 2-3 weeks before RC
Stable beta must be relea
23 matches
Mail list logo
