On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:04:59PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-05-29 16:37:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, maybe we ought to call it an alpha not a beta, but I think we ought
> > to put out some kind of release that we can encourage people to test.
>
> I also do think it's important that we put out a beta (or alpha)
> relatively soon. Both because we actually need input to find out what
> works and what doesn't and also because it pushes us to tie up loose
> ends.
>
> A beta with open items isn't that bad a thing? There's many bigger
> projects doing 4-8 betas releases before a major one; and most of them
> have open items at the indvidual beta's release times.
>
> I think we should define/document it so that there's no hard goal of
> being compatible for beta releases and that the compatibility goal
> starts with the first release candidate, and not the betas.
Do we need release notes for an alpha? Once I do the release notes, it
is possible to miss subtle changes in the code that aren't mentioned in
commit messages.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
