X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D89D1D1FF; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:53:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15897-09; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:52:49 -0400 (AST) Received: from mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.67]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C560DD1D1A7; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:50:04 -0400 (AST) Received: from zeut.net (ool-4352919e.dyn.optonline.net [67.82.145.158]) by mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HOJ00HKH17VGN@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:50:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:49:28 -0500 From: "Matthew T. O'Connor" Subject: Re: Release cycle length In-reply-to: To: Peter Eisentraut Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" , Christopher Kings-Lynne , PostgreSQL Development Message-id: <3FB988B8.1050904@zeut.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3 References: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/921 X-Sequence-Number: 47209 Peter Eisentraut wrote: >Marc G. Fournier writes: > > >>Right now, I believe we are looking at an April 1st beta, and a May 1st >>related ... those are, as always, *tentative* dates that will become more >>fine-tuned as those dates become nearer ... >> >> > >OK, here start the problems. Development already started, so April 1st is >already 5 months development. Add 1 month because no one is willing to >hold people to these dates. So that's 6 months. Then for 6 months of >development, you need at least 2 months of beta. So we're already in the >middle of July, everyone is on vacation, and we'll easily reach the 9 >months -- instead of 6. > > Do you think that 2 months for beta is realistic? Tom announced feature freeze on July 1. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-07/msg00040.php So 7.4 took about 4.5 months to get from feature freeze to release. I think feature freeze is the important date that developers of new features need to concern themselves with. I agree with Peter's other comment, that the longer the development cycle, the longer the beta / bug shakeout period, perhaps a shorter dev cycle would yield a shorter beta period, but perhaps it would also result in a less solid release.