| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length |
| Date: | 2003-11-19 01:56:55 |
| Message-ID: | 3FBACDE7.4090109@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
> 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?
> (Oddly enough, my problem in doing more testing myself is external to
> PostgreSQL; most of our apps are PHP apps and you can't compile PHP against
> two different versions of PostgreSQL on the same server. Maybe with User
> Mode Linux I'll be able to do more testing now.)
I'd be willing to give testing coordination a go, not sure where I'd
begin though.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-11-19 02:00:15 | Re: Is there going to be a port to Solaris 9 x86 in the |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-11-19 01:56:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-11-19 09:11:55 | Re: Build farm |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-11-19 01:56:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length |