On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:16:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> >> I think to really address that problem, you need to think about shorter
> >> release cycles overall, like every 6 months. Otherwise, the current 12
> >> to 14 month horizon is just too long psychologically.
> > I agree. I am in favor of a shorter release cycle.
> I'm not. I don't think there is any demand among *users* (as opposed to
> developers) for more than one major PG release a year. It's hard enough
> to get people to migrate that often.
In fact, I predict that the observed behavior would be for even more end
users to start skipping releases. Some already do - it's common not to
upgrade unless there's a feature you really need, but for those who do
stay on the 'current' upgrade path, you'll lose some who can't afford to
spend more than one integration-testing round a year.
Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu
Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166
Connexions http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665
Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005
GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2011-04-21 15:38:21|
|Subject: Re: getting to beta|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2011-04-21 15:29:27|
|Subject: Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers|