Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> >> 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.
>
> That's not a solution and you know it.
I do?
> Our development cycle has to change with the growth of the project. I
> know you don't like change and are comfortable with how we used to do
I don't? Wow, you are helping me see the light?
> things in 2001. But at this point the old practices are holding us back
> and we need to continue growing, or die.
>
> Our old development cycle was, effectively, single-process just like the
> old database engine was once. Making development more efficient and
> better for all contributors is largely a process of making it parallel
> by the incorporation of more people on every step, which also requires
> increased transparency, openness and tracking.
>
> Otherwise, like an overloaded database application in serializable mode,
> our development will just get slower and slower until it stops completely.
I have no idea how you know so much about me, but don't realize I was
saying that we should extend the release cycle so we don't release as
often, "make major releases less frequent" (every 12-14 months). This
has nothing to do with how we process the releases, parallel or not.
As I have said in the past, we are nearing feature-completeness (in a
way), so having perhaps an 18-month release cycle is an idea. That
would give more time for development compared to beta, etc.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
