Re: Release cycle length - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: Release cycle length
Date
Msg-id 87smkmgyn7.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Release cycle length  ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>)
Responses Re: Release cycle length  (Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
Re: Release cycle length  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Re: Release cycle length  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> So 7.4 took about 4.5 months to get from feature freeze to release.
> I think feature freeze is the important date that developers of new
> features need to concern themselves with.

Rather than the length of the release cycle, I think it's the length
of the beta cycle that we should focus on improving. IMHO, we should
try to make the beta process more efficient: sometimes I get the
impression that the beta process just drags on and on, without the
extra time resulting in a huge improvement in the reliability of the
.0 release (witness the fact that all the .0 releases I can remember
have had a *lot* of serious bugs in them -- we can't catch everything
of course, but I think there is definitely room for improvement).

That said, I'm not really sure how we can make better use of the beta
period. One obvious improvement would be making the beta announcements
more visible: the obscurity of the beta process on www.postgresql.org
for 7.4 was pretty ridiculous. Does anyone else have a suggestion on
what we can do to produce a more reliable .0 release in less time?

-Neil



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: logical column position
Next
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: logical column position