Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@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.
Another problem is that if you halve the release interval, you either
double the amount of work spent on maintaining back branches, or halve
the support lifetime of a branch. Neither of those is attractive.
Now, it certainly would be nice to spend less time in beta mode as
opposed to development, and I think most of the points being made here
are really about how to cut that. But reducing the release interval is
not going to reduce the total amount of time we spend in beta mode;
in fact I'd expect it to increase. Halving the amount of development
time per release doesn't mean that you can cut beta time proportionally.
It just takes time to cut a release, and time for testers to try it.
regards, tom lane
