On 09/06/15 00:59, David Gould wrote:
> I think Alphas are valuable and useful and even more so if they have release
> notes. For example, some of my clients are capable of fetching sources and
> building from scratch and filing bug reports and are often interested in
> particular new features. They even have staging infrastructure that could
> test new postgres releases with real applications. But they don't do it.
> They also don't follow -hackers, they don't track git, and they don't have
> any easy way to tell if if the new feature they are interested in is
> actually complete and ready to test at any particular time. A lot of
> features are developed in multiple commits over a period of time and they
> see no point in testing until at least most of the feature is complete and
> expected to work. But it is not obvious from outside when that happens for
> any given feature. For my clients the value of Alpha releases would
> mainly be the release notes, or some other mark in the sand that says "As of
> Alpha-3 feature X is included and expected to mostly work."
>
> -dg
>
RELEASE NOTES
I think that having:
1. release notes
2. an Alpha people can simply install without having to compile
Would encourage more people to get involved. Such people would be
unlikely to have the time and inclination to use 'nightlies', even if
compiling was not required.
I have read other posts in this thread, that support the above.
Surely, it would be good for pg to have some more people checking
quality at an earlier stage? So reducing barriers to do so is a good thing?
Cheers,
Gavin