Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org,PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length
Date: 2003-11-19 01:56:48
Message-ID: 20031118215619.H731@ganymede.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-www
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> > HOWEVER, a release cycle of *less than 6 months* would kill the advocacy vols
> > if we wanted the same level of publicity.
> >
> > I do support the idea of "dev" releases.   For example, if there was a "dev"
> > release of PG+ARC as soon as Jan is done with it, I have one client would
> > would be willing to test it against a simulated production load on pretty
> > heavy-duty hardware.
>
> Can't we have nightly builds always available?  Why can't they just use
> the CVS version?

We do do nightly builds ... have for years now ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

In response to

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-11-19 01:56:55
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-11-19 01:09:53
Subject: Re: Build farm

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-11-19 01:56:55
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-11-19 01:45:33
Subject: Re: logical column position

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group