Robert Treat <xzi...@users.sourceforge.net> writes: > On Tuesday 27 January 2009 10:34:59 Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> We have tried the short release cycle before, it was called 8.2. It >> fails, remarkably.
> I think this is a bit of revisionsit history. JD got the release number wrong, it was 8.3, but otherwise there's no revisionism involved: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00786.php The theme that our release cycles are too long is not exactly new, of course, eg http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2000-05/msg00574.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-06/msg00766.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-11/msg00889.php but by now I think we've learned to stop banging our heads against that particular rock. One-year major cycles work for this project, shorter ones are wishful thinking. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
