On May 29, 2015 2:12:24 PM PDT, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >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.
Yes I think so. Otherwise it's pretty useless for people not following closely. I see little point in explicitly delaying release note work any further. Andres --- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
