On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote: > Wow! I never knew there were all these people out there who would be rushing > to help test if only the PG developers released alpha versions. It's funny > how they never used to do it when those alphas were done.
That's probably overplaying your hand a little bit (and it sounds a bit catty, too).
I agree. The responses I had written yesterday but didn't send were much worse.
Mainly because I think it's quite an attitude to take that open-source developers should put extra time into building RPMs of development versions rather than testers waiting 5 minutes while their machines compile. Ohmygosh, you have to rpm install a bunch of -devel stuff? What a massive hardship.
The type of responses you are providing on this thread are not warranted.
I got people appearing completely insulted at my remarks and telling me that if only they could run the alpha they would provide testing, so I pointed out how easy it is to install the nightly from source and then they tell me that actually compiling is far too difficult and complicated, and that there are loads of clients who would run these nightlies if they had RPMS...
If I truly believed that such an RPM would produce useful testing, I would spend some of my own time building a setup to produce those RPMs myself and post here publicising them, at which point we would have a huge number of useful and productive test reports. Any one of the people telling me that I'm wrong could easily do the same, but so far none has.
I'm not harping on because I want to make people feel bad, I'm harping on because I don't want to see beta (and final) releases pushed back further because of a bad compromise, and I believe that that will happen. I apologise that I've clearly upset some people but they all have a very easy route to prove me wrong, and I'll be happy to admit my error.
