Robert Haas wrote:
> Both committers and non-committers are currently suffering from the
> fact that there is not a lot of time in the year which is set aside
> for development, i.e. neither CommitFest-time nor beta-time. To fix
> this problem, we can:
>
> 1. Make CommitFests shorter.
> 2. Make CommitFests less frequent.
> 3. Continue developing during CommitFests.
> 4. Make beta cycles shorter.
> 5. Make beta cycles less frequent (i.e. lengthen the release cycle).
> 6. Continue developing during beta.
>
> I believe (1) to be completely impractical and (3) to be
> self-defeating. I suspect (2) will backfire badly. That doesn't
> leave us with a lot of options. We can certainly do (5), but the
> downside is that features that get committed won't hit release for a
> very long time. I and others have suggested a couple of possible
> approaches toward (4) or (6), such as changing the way we do release
> notes, adding more regression tests to give us more (not perfect)
> confidence that the release is solid, and/or branching the tree during
> beta. None of those ideas have gotten a single vote of confidence
> from you or Bruce. What's your suggestion?
Another solution would be to make major releases less frequent.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
