On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> Nobody would be required to upgrade to a new minor release either ...
>> nobody is *require* to upgrade to any release, for that matter ...
>
> Most people don't have the time to investigate release notes, release
> policy details, etc. When there are bug fix updates, you use them.
> When there are feature updates, you use them for the next installation.
> Anything in between, or more variations added to that, just cause
> confusion. And frankly, for the examples thrown around that use this
> kind of policy, I can't see those as being very successful. I don't
> want to use a "stable" branch of a database system that still changes
> for random reasons. And I don't want a "current" branch that takes
> years to finalize. More frequent major releases, to the point that we
> can stem it, lead to more people getting more features earlier, which
> is good. Any of the other proposal just make things worse in my mind.
'k, note that I'm not arguing for more (or less) frequent releases ...
but, do you have any thoughts on how we can effectively continue with the
'frequent releases' while bringing in the large features like Nested
Xacts?
We could start looking at 'development branches' for stuff like this, that
could be merged up when ready for prime time, but would at least be
available in CVS for those wishing to play with them ... ?
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
