Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> Now I am starting to think that we cannot prevent large patches from showing
> up at the end of a cycle no matter what, and the only way to really "solve"
> that problem is to lesson the pain of getting bumped from a release. Ie.
> instead of being bump meaning you must wait 12-14 months till next release,
> we move toward more of a 6 month cycle of development.
I really can't see going in that direction. In the first place, no one
wants to spend a third or more of the time in beta mode. In the
second place, if the problem is big patches that take a long time to
develop, halving the length of the development cycle is no solution.
(If it did work, our plea to break large patches into segments landing
in different commitfests would have had more results.) In the third
place, unless we get an upgrade-in-place process that works all the
time, we would be looking at maintaining twice as many back branches
in order to provide the same kind of release lifespan we have today.
We are at the limit of what we can realistically do in back-branch
maintenance already :-(
regards, tom lane
