On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:48 AM, damien clochard <damien@dalibo.info> wrote:
>
>> How would that work? The reason we have a number of days between the
>> tarballs being rolled and the embargo date is that it takes time to
>> build and properly QA the packages. In the case of the installers,
>> each branch gets tested on 30 - 40 different platforms in total. It is
>> simply not possible to "not produce the packages prior to the official
>> realease".
>>
>
> Ok maybe I was not clear enough here. With the word "produce" I meant
> "making available to public". I'm awara the packagers need time to build
> and test their packages.
>
> What I am saying is that the packagers should not release publicly the
> packages before the official release date.
Right, I agree with that.
>> No, most definitely not. The packagers list is a working/coordination
>> list, not one for discussion. We need to keep that list tightly
>> purposed and focussed on those actually creating packages for public
>> distribution and arguably in the future, deployment on public DBaaS
>> platforms (the key word in both cases, being "public").
>>
>
> Meh. What do you mean by "public" ? To me something that is "available
> to everyone" or "open to general view". If you include paying services
> sucha as Red Hat and Heroku in this "public" definition, than I guess
> PostgreSQL support company is "public" too ? Where's the difference ?
PostgreSQL support companies do not generally produce PostgreSQL
binary packages that are available for anyone to use (for a service
fee or otherwise) either via download or on a platform like a cloud
service. There are a handful of exceptions to that rule (EDB for
example, as we produce the installers), but most, if not all of those
companies are on the packagers list already.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company