Message-ID: <3FBACDE7.4090109@familyhealth.com.au>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:56:55 +0800
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
	rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>,
	Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>, pgsql-www@postgresql.org,
	PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311180329330.639-100000@peter.localdomain>
	<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

> HOWEVER, a release cycle of *less than 6 months* would kill the advocacy vols 
> if we wanted the same level of publicity.
> 
> I do support the idea of "dev" releases.   For example, if there was a "dev" 
> release of PG+ARC as soon as Jan is done with it, I have one client would 
> would be willing to test it against a simulated production load on pretty 
> heavy-duty hardware.  

Can't we have nightly builds always available?  Why can't they just use 
the CVS version?

> (Oddly enough, my problem in doing more testing myself is external to 
> PostgreSQL; most of our apps are PHP apps and you can't compile PHP against 
> two different versions of PostgreSQL on the same server.   Maybe with User 
> Mode Linux I'll be able to do more testing now.)

I'd be willing to give testing coordination a go, not sure where I'd 
begin though.

Chris