On 06/06/2015 07:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps we're honoring this more in the breech than in the observance,
>> but I'm not making up what Tom has said about this:
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/27310.1251410965@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19174.1299782543@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3413.1301154369@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3261.1401915832@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> Of course, not doing a catversion bump after beta1 doesn't necessarily
> have much value in and of itself. *Promising* to not do a catversion
> bump, and then usually keeping that promise definitely has a certain
> value, but clearly we are incapable of that.
>
It seems to me that a cat bump during Alpha or Beta should be absolutely
fine and reservedly fine respectively. Where we should absolutely not
cat bump unless there is absolutely no other choice is during and RC.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.
