Re: Release cycle length
От | Matthew T. O'Connor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Release cycle length |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3FB988B8.1050904@zeut.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Release cycle length (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Release cycle length
Re: Release cycle length |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote: >Marc G. Fournier writes: > > >>Right now, I believe we are looking at an April 1st beta, and a May 1st >>related ... those are, as always, *tentative* dates that will become more >>fine-tuned as those dates become nearer ... >> >> > >OK, here start the problems. Development already started, so April 1st is >already 5 months development. Add 1 month because no one is willing to >hold people to these dates. So that's 6 months. Then for 6 months of >development, you need at least 2 months of beta. So we're already in the >middle of July, everyone is on vacation, and we'll easily reach the 9 >months -- instead of 6. > > Do you think that 2 months for beta is realistic? Tom announced feature freeze on July 1. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-07/msg00040.php So 7.4 took about 4.5 months to get from feature freeze to release. I think feature freeze is the important date that developers of new features need to concern themselves with. I agree with Peter's other comment, that the longer the development cycle, the longer the beta / bug shakeout period, perhaps a shorter dev cycle would yield a shorter beta period, but perhaps it would also result in a less solid release.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: