From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Beta schedule (was Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 06:31:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <200303111131.h2BBVQd25189@candle.pha.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2920.1047360721@sss.pgh.pa.us>
I agree, let's not wait for specific features. The issue was whether we
had enough significant features done for a release --- I didn't think we
did, so I am saying, let's get more features, rather than let's get
feature X.
As we fill in missing features, there will be less must-have features to
add, so we are left with continuing with our present release pace or
releasing less frequently with the same number of feature additions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> writes:
> > With 7.1/7.2, Tom mentioned us being delayed because specific features
> > we were waiting for became dependant on one person.
>
> > Would it be feasible to investigate approaches for having the Win32 and
> > PITR work be shared amongst a few very-interested volunteers, so that
> > people can cover for each other's downtime?
>
> It would certainly be good to bring as much manpower to bear on those
> problems as we can. But that doesn't really address my concern: if the
> schedule is defined as "we go beta when feature X is done", then no one
> who's working on stuff other than feature X knows how to plan their
> time. The only fair way to run the project is "we go beta at time T";
> that way everyone knows what they need to shoot for and can plan
> accordingly.
>
> I don't mind setting the planned time T on the basis of what we think
> it will take for certain popular feature X's to be done. But if the
> guys working on X aren't done at T, it's not fair to everyone else to
> hold our breaths waiting for them to be done at T-plus-who-knows-what.
>
> I don't really have any sympathy for the argument that "it won't be a
> compelling release if we don't have feature X". If the release isn't
> compelling for someone, they don't have to upgrade; they can wait for
> the next release. The folks who *are* eager for what's been gotten done
> will be glad of having a release now rather than N months from now.
> And do I need to point out that "it runs on Windoze" is not of
> earth-shattering importance for everyone?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, justin@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Beta schedule (was Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign)
In-Reply-To: <200303111131.h2BBVQd25189@candle.pha.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox