On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 09:28 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:29:58 -0400
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > > I'd suggest we have multiple checkpoints during the cycle.
> > > Checkpoint is a "patch queue blitz" where we stop developing and
> > > reduce the queue to nothing. Perhaps a two-week period where
> > > everybody helps reduce the queue, not just Tom and Bruce. Every
> > > outstanding patch gets told what they need to do in order to get it
> > > committed. FF is then just the last in a series of checkpoints.
> > > Suggest we do a checkpoint every 2 months.
> >
> > I like this idea ...
>
> As do I. It will also allow us to decrease the amount of changes that
> have to be reviewed for regressions during testing.
Cool. Nobody seems to have disagreed...
> I know I just love it when a customer breaks something and I ask what
> changed and it is 56 different things ;)
>
> My question is.. with a checkpoint every 2 months, would it make it
> very easy to release every 6 (or 4 or 3 or 9) months? I am not saying
> we "have" to but it certainly opens up the possibility to the argument
> I made.
>
> With a 2 months checkpoint, we can release when we want. When we feel
> we have enough and not have a ginormous back log of patches to go
> through.
Maybe. I'm looking for ways to increase the amount of development time
we have compared with time releasing. If we release twice as often, we
won't get twice the beta test contribution from everybody, so our code
will be less robust, which will hurt us in the long run.
-- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com