On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Ron Mayer wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> In any case, I don't accept this analogy. The mechanics of a Linux
>> distribution are very different from the mechanics of a project like
>> PostgreSQL. The prominent OSS project that seems to me most like ours is
>> the A
Josh Berkus wrote:
> I can't find information about HTTPD release planning so I'll take your
> word for it. On the other hand, I have to point out that Apache is
> releasing HTTPD major versions an average of once every 3 years. I
> don't think we want to go to 3 years, do we?
I'd say it depends
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> In any case, I don't accept this analogy. The mechanics of a Linux
> distribution are very different from the mechanics of a project like
> PostgreSQL. The prominent OSS project that seems to me most like ours is
> the Apache HTTP project.
I'd think that File Systems might
> In any case, I don't accept this analogy. The mechanics of a Linux
> distribution are very different from the mechanics of a project like
> PostgreSQL. The prominent OSS project that seems to me most like ours is
> the Apache HTTP project. But they don't do timed releases AFAIK, and
> theirs is
>
> I personally suspect PostgreSQL would want a 1 year cycle for major
> releases while a full dump/reload is required for upgrades. When this
> changes, 6 or even 4 months might actually be a good fit.
>
For some DBA specialist is 1 year cycle too much fast. I thing, so 1
year cycle is perfect f
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> The release cycle is quite independent of the release lifetime.
If you have dates on releases, it is easier to set dates on release
lifetime. If you know the releases come out once a year at about the
same time, and you want to have a set nu
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> I would argue that it would be an major setback for us if we made
> another release without having Hot Standby or whatever we are calling it
> now. I would much rather slip one month or three than ship without it.
I would agree with you, except that every single time we
Stuart Bishop wrote:
Canonical (my employer) certainly believe in time based releases, and
that is one of the major reasons for the growth of Ubuntu and the
Ubuntu Community. We now use time based releases for almost all our
sponsored projects (some 6 monthly, some monthly), and are lobbying
va
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I'd think the advantages for our commercial adopters (who pay the
> salaries for many of the people on this list) would be obvious; if they
> know with a small margin of error when the next version of PostgreSQL is
> coming out, they can plan
All,
>>> There's some very good reasons for the health of the project to have
>>> specific release dates and stick to them.
>> Help me understand why?
We've cited this before, but here's the definitive paper on the subject:
http://www.cyrius.com/publications/michlmayr-phd.pdf
summary here:
http:
10 matches
Mail list logo
