Обсуждение: 9.2 release schedule
What are our plans for a 9.2 final release date? If we wait until September 1 to release our first release candidate, we will probably not release final until mid/late September. Is that what we want? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On 21 July 2012 08:08, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > What are our plans for a 9.2 final release date? If we wait until > September 1 to release our first release candidate, we will probably not > release final until mid/late September. Is that what we want? Personally I had hoped to see an earlier release date than that. Can we finish the 9.2 release notes? -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 21 July 2012 08:08, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> What are our plans for a 9.2 final release date? If we wait until >> September 1 to release our first release candidate, we will probably not >> release final until mid/late September. Is that what we want? > Personally I had hoped to see an earlier release date than that. Me too, but we are running out of time ... it's already late July. I think the immediate goal must be to clear the list of open issues http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.2_Open_Items and then get another beta out. It seems unlikely that we could do a beta next week (for one thing, certain key people are going to be out sailing...) but maybe we could schedule the next beta for first Monday in August? That gives us about ten days to get the open issues dealt with before wrapping. regards, tom lane
I wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 21 July 2012 08:08, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > What are our plans for a 9.2 final release date? If we wait until > September 1 to release our first release candidate, we will probably not > release final until mid/late September. Is that what we want? >> Personally I had hoped to see an earlier release date than that. > Me too, but we are running out of time ... it's already late July. > I think the immediate goal must be to clear the list of open issues > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.2_Open_Items > and then get another beta out. It looks like the most optimistic schedule we could possibly make, assuming no show-stopper bugs are reported, is: * Wrap beta3 on August 2 for release Monday Aug 6 * RC1 two weeks later (release Aug 20) * 9.2.0 two weeks after that (release Sept 3) Now that schedule isn't actually going to work so far as the USA contingent is concerned, because Sept 3 is Labor Day. But we could figure that there's room for one week's slip in there, either for RC1 or final, giving us a release date of Sept 10. Again, this is assuming no major bugs are found to force more slippage or additional betas/RCs. But I think it's reasonable to shoot for If All Goes Well. Comments, objections? regards, tom lane
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > It looks like the most optimistic schedule we could possibly make, > assuming no show-stopper bugs are reported, is: > > * Wrap beta3 on August 2 for release Monday Aug 6 > > * RC1 two weeks later (release Aug 20) > > * 9.2.0 two weeks after that (release Sept 3) > > Now that schedule isn't actually going to work so far as the USA > contingent is concerned, because Sept 3 is Labor Day. But we could > figure that there's room for one week's slip in there, either for > RC1 or final, giving us a release date of Sept 10. > > Again, this is assuming no major bugs are found to force more slippage > or additional betas/RCs. But I think it's reasonable to shoot for > If All Goes Well. > > Comments, objections? Seems OK, but I think we need to work a little harder on evicting some things from the list of open items. I don't think all of the things listed in the blockers section really are, and I'm not sure what needs to be done about some of the things that are there. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Seems OK, but I think we need to work a little harder on evicting some
> things from the list of open items. I don't think all of the things
> listed in the blockers section really are, and I'm not sure what needs
> to be done about some of the things that are there.
I've got the libpq row processor thing. That and the CHECK NO INHERIT
syntax thing are definitely release-blockers, because we won't be able
to change such decisions post-release (well, we could, but the pain to
benefit ratio is bad). I guess the SPGiST vs HS issue is a blocker too.
A lot of the rest look like pre-existing bugs to me.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:29:06AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > Seems OK, but I think we need to work a little harder on evicting some > > things from the list of open items. I don't think all of the things > > listed in the blockers section really are, and I'm not sure what needs > > to be done about some of the things that are there. > > I've got the libpq row processor thing. That and the CHECK NO INHERIT > syntax thing are definitely release-blockers, because we won't be able > to change such decisions post-release (well, we could, but the pain to > benefit ratio is bad). I guess the SPGiST vs HS issue is a blocker too. > A lot of the rest look like pre-existing bugs to me. The only preexisting issues listed under "Blockers for 9.2" are "GiST indexes vs fuzzy comparisons used by geometric types" and "Should we fix tuple limit handling, or redefine 9.x behavior as correct?". Also, I'm not sure what exactly the "keepalives" item indicates. Whether every regression deserves to block the release is, of course, a separate question. I think "WAL files which were restored from the archive are archived again" is the thorniest regression, and we don't yet have a patch.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:29:06AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> > Seems OK, but I think we need to work a little harder on evicting some >> > things from the list of open items. I don't think all of the things >> > listed in the blockers section really are, and I'm not sure what needs >> > to be done about some of the things that are there. >> >> I've got the libpq row processor thing. That and the CHECK NO INHERIT >> syntax thing are definitely release-blockers, because we won't be able >> to change such decisions post-release (well, we could, but the pain to >> benefit ratio is bad). I guess the SPGiST vs HS issue is a blocker too. >> A lot of the rest look like pre-existing bugs to me. > > The only preexisting issues listed under "Blockers for 9.2" are "GiST indexes > vs fuzzy comparisons used by geometric types" and "Should we fix tuple limit > handling, or redefine 9.x behavior as correct?". Also, I'm not sure what > exactly the "keepalives" item indicates. Whether every regression deserves to > block the release is, of course, a separate question. > > I think "WAL files which were restored from the archive are archived again" is > the thorniest regression, and we don't yet have a patch. Yep, that's really a problem. Will implement the patch. Regards, -- Fujii Masao