To: Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>
Cc: Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Release cycle length 
In-reply-to: <20031118032123.GJ6073@filer> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311180215410.639-100000@peter.localdomain>
	<87zneuh0cl.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com> <20031118032123.GJ6073@filer>
Comments: In-reply-to Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>
	message dated "Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:21:23 -0800"
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:33:15 -0500
Message-ID: <6512.1069360395@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> writes:
> ... That's why the release methodology used by the Linux kernel development
> team is a reasonable one.

I do not think we have the manpower to manage multiple active
development branches.  The Postgres developer community is a fraction of
the size of the Linux community; if we try to adopt what they do we'll
just drown in work.  It's hard enough to deal with the existing level of
commitment to back-patching one stable release --- I know that we miss
back-patching bug fixes that probably should have been back-patched.
And the stuff that does get back-patched isn't really tested to the
level that it ought to be, which discourages us from applying fixes
to the stable branch if they are too large to be "obviously correct".
I don't see manpower emerging from the woodwork to fix those problems.

If we were doing active feature development in more than one branch
I think our process would break down completely.

			regards, tom lane