| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-11-19 01:56:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-11-19 01:45:33 | Re: logical column position |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-11-19 01:56:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-19 01:09:53 | Re: Build farm |