To: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report 
In-reply-to: <46348320.7080808@kaltenbrunner.cc> 
References: <200704270313.l3R3DwF16449@momjian.us>
	<1177792836.3663.61.camel@silverbirch.site>
	<46348320.7080808@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Comments: In-reply-to Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
	message dated "Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:36:00 +0200"
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:53:30 -0400
Message-ID: <24377.1177865610@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> My thinking is to move to a two stage release process: Do one
>> "production" release annually, and one "dev" release at the 6 month
>> mid-point.

> I'm not really convinced that this is good idea at all - it would lead
> to further fragmentation of developer resources (likely more versions to
> support and more frequent releases which to put quite a load on
> developers by itself).

That's my reaction too.  The overhead of a "dev" release would be just
as high as a full release, and we don't really have enough manpower
to do two releases a year.  We *definitely* haven't got enough manpower
to double the number of back branches we are trying to keep patched.
So this could only work if dev releases are abandoned from a support
perspective when the next full release comes out, and that will entirely
guarantee that no DBA will use one in production.

			regards, tom lane