| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-core <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release |
| Date: | 2015-06-01 18:09:31 |
| Message-ID: | 556C9FDB.3010508@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
All,
Just my $0.02 on PR: it has never been a PR problem to do multiple
update releases, as long as we could provide a good reason for doing so
(like: fix A is available now and we didn't want to hold it back waiting
for fix B).
It's always a practical question of (a) packaging and (b) deployment.
That is, we can get packager fatigue where some updates don't get
packaged, and we can get user fatigue where they start ignoring updates.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-01 18:22:32 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-01 18:06:05 | Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |