Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> I think to really address that problem, you need to think about shorter >> release cycles overall, like every 6 months. Otherwise, the current 12 >> to 14 month horizon is just too long psychologically.
> I agree. I am in favor of a shorter release cycle. I'm not. I don't think there is any demand among *users* (as opposed to developers) for more than one major PG release a year. It's hard enough to get people to migrate that often. Another problem is that if you halve the release interval, you either double the amount of work spent on maintaining back branches, or halve the support lifetime of a branch. Neither of those is attractive. Now, it certainly would be nice to spend less time in beta mode as opposed to development, and I think most of the points being made here are really about how to cut that. But reducing the release interval is not going to reduce the total amount of time we spend in beta mode; in fact I'd expect it to increase. Halving the amount of development time per release doesn't mean that you can cut beta time proportionally. It just takes time to cut a release, and time for testers to try it. 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