On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 19:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > Plus, for the developers and other people who really need to be
> > bleeding-edge, this new plan would result in less-unstable snapshots every
> > 2 months with defined feature sets which someone who wanted to run them at
> > their own risk could. Which would result in more bug reports, earlier,
> > for us (and lots of forwarding the canned
> > "milestone-releases-are-not-stable" canned e-mail).
>
> Hmm, I was not envisioning that we'd produce any sort of "release"
> corresponding to these checkpoints. I see it only as a a way to
> (a) discipline ourselves to not let patches go unreviewed/uncommitted
> for long periods, and (b) encourage developers to submit relatively
> small patches rather than enormous six-months-of-work ones.
>
> Since there are always bugs, and we're certainly not going to schedule a
> round of formal beta testing right after each commit-fest, I should
> think that tarballs made right after a commit-fest would be particularly
> unlikely to be good candidates for non-developer use.
>
> (Actually, it might be the case that a CVS snap from just *before*
> a commit-fest would be the most stable development-cycle code, since
> there'd have been time to shake out bugs committed in the previous
> fest... but we're even less likely to do beta testing on that.)
+1
-- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com