Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > On 1 December 2015 at 17:05, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> do we want to >> back-patch those changes to 9.5 at this late date?
> Surely the whole point of a release process is to fix issues in the > release. If we don't ever dare put something in the release, we may as well > have released it earlier.
> I'm thinking about a two stage release process...
> Stage 1 - released, but with caveats and some parts marked > experimental/beta whatever
> Stage 2 - released, all caveats resolved
> Not sure what to call that.
9.5beta3. If you're saying we are not ready for an RC, then it's a beta.
I guess I really meant "in the future" or "next time", but perhaps that could apply now.
The main issue is that most of these things are pretty trivial and hardly worth delaying the release process of The World's Most Advanced Open Source Database for; its not like the Saturn V will fail to fly.
We don't seem to put any negative weighting on delay; even the smallest issues are enough to delay us. That's daft because we know we'll hit a raft of bugs soon after release, we just don't know where they are yet - so fooling ourselves that it needs to be perfect before release of 9.5.0 doesn't help anybody.
Do we think they ever launched a Saturn V that didn't have some marginal flashing lights somewhere?
I accept there are open items. I'd like a way to indicate to people they can start using it with a safety, apart from the listed caveats.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
