Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> In any case, I don't accept this analogy. The mechanics of a Linux
> distribution are very different from the mechanics of a project like
> PostgreSQL. The prominent OSS project that seems to me most like ours is
> the Apache HTTP project.
I'd think that File Systems might be more like postgres - with a shared
obsession about data loss risks, and concerns about compatibility
with any on-disk format changes. I wonder if the ext4 or btrfs
guys use time-based release schedules, or if they'll release when
it's ready. I see the ZFS guys have target dates for completing
features that are still in beta, but also that they change as needed.[1]
[1] http://opensolaris.org/os/project/zfs-crypto/
Anyone know how the F/OSS filesystem guys schedule their releases?
I agree it's quite different than a distro - which, if I understand
correctly, is mostly a matter of identifying completed and stable
features rather than completing and stabilizing features.
> I would argue that it would be an major setback for us if we made
> another release without having Hot Standby or whatever we are calling it
> now. I would much rather slip one month or three than ship without it.
Perhaps if sufficiently interesting features get in outside of
a time-based schedule, an extra release could be made after the
commit fest it gets in?
If hot-standby + streaming-replication + index_only_scans +
magic-fairy-dust-powered-shared-nothing-clusters all happened
to get in 3 months after a time-based release, it'd be nice to
see it sooner rather than waiting 9 months for a time-based window.
