Message-ID: <4713F6C6.4040201@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:24:54 -0700
From: rm_rs@cheapcomplexdevices.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
CC: Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>,
 pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Release notes introductory text
References: <200710112004.l9BK4eq03596@momjian.us>
	<470E40B2.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
	<20071011165148.045f827c@scratch> <15467.1192152680@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<470FB0DD.2080104@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
	<4713A3F4.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
In-Reply-To: <4713A3F4.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> How exactly do you expect the software to get from a .0 to a .1 release,
>>> or to have addressed the bugs that might bite you when it does get to .1,
>>> if you aren't helping to test it?
>>>       
>> In most environments I've seen, developer and QA systems don't hesitate
>> to move to .0 releases (or even beta).   I agree with Joshua that it's
>> nerve wracking to move _production_ systems to .0 releases from most
>> software vendors.
>>     
>  
> My philosophy is that the final QA environment should be as close to
> the production environment as can be arranged, but that difference in
> the development and initial test environments contribute to
> robustness.
>   
Sorry if I implied otherwise - I was assuming an environment
where QA has multiple environments; one of which clearly
should be the same as production.