"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> All,
>
>> We could release "alpha" releases. But that assumes that these reviews
>> actually result in stuff getting committed even if they're not 100%
>> complete. I think that would be a good thing but I don't think everyone
>> else agrees. Also, not all reviewers are committers.
>
> This is what I'm thinking, too. It would be a *lot* easier for the Sun
> peformance team (and presumably others) to test performance of stuff which
> was getting committed rather than having to hunt down *this* version of
> *that* patch and apply it against the snapshot from *this specific date* ...
Fwiw I had put together a jumbo patch for three of the patches which you were
interested in, HOT, LDC, and GII. This was specifically for the benefit of
users like you to get an early experience of these patches. I think it was
actually shortly after you had reported a problem running them together which
was blocking you from running benchmarks on them.
The problem I ran into was that by the time I had them all wrapped up major
new commits to the CVS tree made it uninteresting to benchmark the snapshot I
had. Also I think a new version of HOT had been posted.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com