On May 29, 2015 2:12:24 PM PDT, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>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.
Yes I think so. Otherwise it's pretty useless for people not following closely. I see little point in explicitly
delayingrelease note work any further.
Andres
---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
