Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Agreed. Cleanup can occur while we release code for public testing.
> The code is available for public testing right now.
Only to people who have the time and ability to pull the code from git
and build from source. I don't know exactly what fraction of interested
testers that excludes, but I bet it's significant. The point of producing
packages would be to remove that barrier to testing.
> Stamping it a
> beta implies that we think it's something fairly stable that we'd be
> pretty happy to release if things go well, which is a higher bar to
> clear.
So let's call it an alpha, or some other way of setting expectations
appropriately. But I think it's silly to maintain that the code is not in
a state where end-user testing is useful. They just have to understand
that they can't trust it with production data.
> I can't help noticing for all the drumbeat of "let's release 9.5 beta
> now", activity to clean up the items on this list seems quite
> sluggish:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items
While we need to work on those items, I do not agree that getting that
list to empty has to happen before we release a test version. I think
serializing effort in that way is simply bad project management. And
it's not how we've operated in the past either: getting the open items
list to empty has always been understood as a prerequisite to RC versions,
not to betas.
To get to specifics instead of generalities: exactly which of the current
open items do you think is so bad that it precludes user testing? I do
not see a beta-blocker in the lot.
regards, tom lane