On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Ross J. Reedstrom <reeds...@rice.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:16:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. > > In fact, I predict that the observed behavior would be for even more end > users to start skipping releases. Some already do - it's common not to > upgrade unless there's a feature you really need, but for those who do > stay on the 'current' upgrade path, you'll lose some who can't afford to > spend more than one integration-testing round a year.
Well, that aspect of the problem doesn't bother me, much. I don't really care whether people upgrade to each new release the moment it comes out anyway. It would require us to keep any backward-compatibility hacks around for more releases, but we're pretty good about that anyway. 8.3 broke the world, but the last few releases have been pretty smooth for most people, I think. Not to say that there aren't OTHER problems with the idea... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
