| From: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Release cycle length |
| Date: | 2003-11-18 03:26:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20031118032620.GK6073@filer |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> I agree with Peter's other comment, that the longer the development
> cycle, the longer the beta / bug shakeout period, perhaps a shorter dev
> cycle would yield a shorter beta period, but perhaps it would also
> result in a less solid release.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. The fewer the changes, the less complexity you
have to manage.
But it would certainly result in a smaller set of feature changes per
release. Some people might regard that as a good thing.
The advantage to doing more frequent releases is that new features end
up with more real-world testing within a given block of time, on
average, because a lot more people pick up the releases than the CVS
snapshots or even release candidates..
--
Kevin Brown kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-11-18 03:32:25 | Re: Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-11-18 03:21:23 | Re: Release cycle length |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-11-18 03:32:25 | Re: Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-11-18 03:21:23 | Re: Release cycle length |