On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:04:59PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-05-29 16:37:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Well, maybe we ought to call it an alpha not a beta, but I think we ought > > to put out some kind of release that we can encourage people to test. > > I also do think it's important that we put out a beta (or alpha) > relatively soon. Both because we actually need input to find out what > works and what doesn't and also because it pushes us to tie up loose > ends. > > A beta with open items isn't that bad a thing? There's many bigger > projects doing 4-8 betas releases before a major one; and most of them > have open items at the indvidual beta's release times. > > I think we should define/document it so that there's no hard goal of > being compatible for beta releases and that the compatibility goal > starts with the first release candidate, and not the betas.
Do we need release notes for an alpha? Once I do the release notes, it is possible to miss subtle changes in the code that aren't mentioned in commit messages. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
