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 50F64D1B536 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:49:26 +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 86623-04 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:48:56 -0400 (AST) Received: from trolak.mydnsbox2.com (ns1.mydnsbox2.com [207.44.142.118]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2F4D1B515 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:48:55 -0400 (AST) Received: from dunslane.net (x.ncshp.org [199.90.235.43]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by trolak.mydnsbox2.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAIJjtQ26407 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:45:55 -0600 Message-ID: <3FBA6999.9030906@dunslane.net> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:48:57 -0500 From: Andrew Dunstan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Postgresql Hackers Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Release cycle length References: <87smkmgyn7.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com> <20031117233828.Y731@ganymede.hub.org> <200311180942.31093.josh@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: <200311180942.31093.josh@agliodbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/997 X-Sequence-Number: 47285 Josh Berkus wrote: >Guys, > >I agree with Neil ... it's not the length of the development part of the >cycle, it's the length of the beta testing. > >I do think an online bug tracker (bugzilla or whatever) would help. I also >think that having a person in charge of "testing" would help as well ... no >biggie, just someone whose duty it is to e-mail people in the community and >ask about the results of testing, especially on the more obscure ports. I >think a few e-mail reminders would do a *lot* to speed things up. But I'm >not volunteering for this job; managing the release PR is "herding cats" >enough! > Maybe some sort of automated distributed build farm would be a good idea. Check out http://build.samba.org/about.html to see how samba does it (much lighter than the Mozilla tinderbox approach). We wouldn't need to be as intensive as they appear to be - maybe a once or twice a day download and test run would do the trick, but it could pick up lots of breakage fairly quickly. That is not to say that more intensive testing isn't also needed on occasion. cheers andrew