| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 release planning |
| Date: | 2009-01-28 00:04:49 |
| Message-ID: | 3615.1233101089@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 10:34:59 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> We have tried the short release cycle before, it was called 8.2. It
>> fails, remarkably.
> I think this is a bit of revisionsit history.
JD got the release number wrong, it was 8.3, but otherwise there's no
revisionism involved:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00786.php
The theme that our release cycles are too long is not exactly new,
of course, eg
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2000-05/msg00574.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-06/msg00766.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-11/msg00889.php
but by now I think we've learned to stop banging our heads against
that particular rock. One-year major cycles work for this project,
shorter ones are wishful thinking.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2009-01-28 01:24:41 | Re: 8.4 release planning |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-01-27 23:57:38 | Re: 8.4 release planning |