Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I am concerned about a May release. That puts us at almost a year from
> > the last major release in mid-June. That is too long. Seems like we
> > should have some release around February.
>
> Let's list the 7.0 items:
> [...]
> None of these are done, except for the system indexes, and that is a
> small item. It seems everyone wants a grand 7.0, but that is months
> away.
>
> I propose we go into beta on 6.6 Jan 1, with final release Feb 1. We
> certainly have enough for a 6.6 release.
#define READ_BETWEEN_LINES true
THAT'S MY CHANCE :-)
Let's not call it 6.6, instead it should read 6.6.6 - the
BEASTS release. That number could probably make serious
database users/admins look somewhat more careful at the
release notes.
> Also, I have never been a big fan of huge, fancy releases because they
> take too long to become stable. Better for us to release what we have
> now and work out those kinks.
#define READ_BETWEEN_LINES false
With all the PARTIALLY developed and COMMITTED fancy 7.0
features inside, do you really think that release would be
easy to get stable? I fear the partial features we already
have inside lead to a substantial increase in mailing list
traffic.
As far as I've read the responses, the users community called
6.5 one of the best releases ever made. Many nice, new
features and an outstanding quality WRT reliability and
performance. Never underestimate the users community hearsay
in open source - don't play with our reputation!
If we really go for a 6.6 release, we need to branch off from
the 6.5 tree and backpatch things we want to have in 6.6 into
there. Releasing some snapshot of the current 7.0 tree as 6.6
IMHO is a risk we cannot estimate.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #
