On Apr 27, 2012, at 21:24, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 09:10:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> How would that help? The bottleneck is packaging, which is the same
>>> work whatever we call it.
>
>> We release the alpha with no packaging.
>
> Think we'd lose a lot of potential testers that way.
>
It seems that even if you published before PGCon a reasonable number of possible testers would be there and/or
respondingto any feedback is going to be delayed since developers are going to be there.
I could see the goal being having a package-ready commit before PGCon but schedule the official release until after.
Nomatter what you call it those who want a head start can self-compile while others will just wait until the packagers
aredone. Either way the same codebase will be in the wild (so probably don't want to call it alpha).
The original reason for pre-conference is so the developers can feel less bad talking about 9.3 features (and 9.2
post-mortem)since the beta for 9.2 will be completed.
David J.