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 0F7EBD1B515 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:22:00 +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 01971-01 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:21:32 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36538D1C7F4 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:21:28 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 22373 invoked by uid 0); 18 Nov 2003 01:21:31 -0000 Received: from dsl-082-082-166-244.arcor-ip.net (EHLO [192.168.2.136]) (82.82.166.244) by mail.gmx.net (mp003) with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 02:21:31 +0100 X-Authenticated: #495269 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:21:45 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut X-X-Sender: peter@peter.localdomain To: Neil Conway Cc: PostgreSQL Development Subject: Re: Release cycle length In-Reply-To: <87isliiiue.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/903 X-Sequence-Number: 47191 Neil Conway writes: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > The time from release 7.3 to release 7.4 was 355 days, an all-time > > high. We really need to shorten that. > > Why is that? First, if you develop something today, the first time users would realistically get a hand at it would be January 2005. Do you want that? Don't you want people to use your code? We fix problems, but people must wait a year for the fix? Second, the longer a release cycle, the more problems amass. People just forget what they were doing in the beginning, no one is around to fix the problems introduced earlier, no one remembers anything when it comes time to write release notes. The longer you develop, the more parallel efforts are underway, and it becomes impossible to synchronize them to a release date. People are not encouraged to provide small, well-thought-out, modular improvements. Instead, they break everything open and worry about it later. At the end, it's always a rush to close these holes. Altogether, it's a loss for both developers and users. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net