Re: 9.1 Beta

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> The correct question is whether we're ready for beta, and I would say
> the answer is clearly no, unless you have a pretty low standard for what
> "ready for beta" means.  Perhaps it would be suitable to discuss what
> the standard for that really ought to be; but I don't agree in the
> slightest that we ought to decide based on predetermined calendar dates
> rather than the state of the code.

OK

>> If we had a hard date for feature freeze, lets have a hard date for
>> Beta of +2 months (next time), and +2.5 months now. (I know +1 month
>> was suggested, well that's just unrealistic). Beta is a great time to
>> resolve difficult decisions, by opening the floor to wider debate and
>> feedback.
>
> The reason we get wider testing during beta is that people have some
> confidence (perhaps misplaced) that the database won't eat their data.
> Releasing alpha-grade code and calling it beta isn't going to get us
> wider testing ... at least, not more than once.

I agree that we seem to have slightly different viewpoints on what Beta means.

Your definition of Beta sounds like "safe enough to run production
systems on", but not trying to put words in your mouth.

I think if we have a clear statement of what Beta actually means it
would help us know when we've achieved it.
And it will also inform potential Beta testers of what we mean by it.

The basic point of this post was this: If we wait for the Open Items
list to drop to zero, many people are unable to contribute and that
means delay. Also, waiting for the Open Items list to drop to zero
puts the schedule in the hands of one or two individuals, which is a
bad thing.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services