Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > >> None of those ideas have gotten a single vote of confidence > >> from you or Bruce. What's your suggestion? > > > > Another solution would be to make major releases less frequent. > > That's not a solution and you know it.
I do? > Our development cycle has to change with the growth of the project. I > know you don't like change and are comfortable with how we used to do I don't? Wow, you are helping me see the light? > things in 2001. But at this point the old practices are holding us back > and we need to continue growing, or die. > > Our old development cycle was, effectively, single-process just like the > old database engine was once. Making development more efficient and > better for all contributors is largely a process of making it parallel > by the incorporation of more people on every step, which also requires > increased transparency, openness and tracking. > > Otherwise, like an overloaded database application in serializable mode, > our development will just get slower and slower until it stops completely. I have no idea how you know so much about me, but don't realize I was saying that we should extend the release cycle so we don't release as often, "make major releases less frequent" (every 12-14 months). This has nothing to do with how we process the releases, parallel or not. As I have said in the past, we are nearing feature-completeness (in a way), so having perhaps an 18-month release cycle is an idea. That would give more time for development compared to beta, etc. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
