Re: [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> We don't have a clear definition of what Beta means. For me, Beta has
> always meant "trial software, please test".

I think that definition *is* the problem, actually.  To me, "beta" means
"trial software, please test, but final product will be very similar to
what you see here".  What we need to convey at this point is what you
said, but I think a better word for that is "alpha".  There may be more
mobility in there than in a beta, in users's perception, which is the
right impression we want to convey.

Another point is that historically, once we've released a beta, we're
pretty reluctant to bump catversion.  We're not ready for that at this
stage, which is one criteria that suggests to me that we're not ready
for beta.

So I think the right thing to do at this point is to get an alpha out,
shortly after releasing upcoming minors.