On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark writes:
>> There's not much point in releasing a beta with behaviour that we know
>> we intend to change. All it will do is elicit bug reports that we have
>> to respond to saying "we know, we were going to change that anyways".
>
>>
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark writes:
>> There's not much point in releasing a beta with behaviour that we know
>> we intend to change. All it will do is elicit bug reports that we have
>> to respond to saying "we know, we were going to change that anyways".
>
>> I
Greg Stark writes:
> There's not much point in releasing a beta with behaviour that we know
> we intend to change. All it will do is elicit bug reports that we have
> to respond to saying "we know, we were going to change that anyways".
> I think the goal of a beta is to be able to say "we think
On 03/25/2011 06:18 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Judging by the number of new threads about development for 9.2, I
think its time we declared 9.1 Beta. I just had a conversation with
some Debian developers about how PostgreSQL 9.0 got pulled out of
their release because we delayed by 3 weeks. So we m
On Mar 26, 2011, at 4:27 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> The basic point of this post was this: If we wait for the Open Items
> list to drop to zero, many people are unable to contribute and that
> means delay. Also, waiting for the Open Items list to drop to zero
> puts the schedule in the hands of one
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> First, you are presuming that the state of those patches must hold up
> the whole release process. I don't think it should
There's not much point in releasing a beta with behaviour that we know
we intend to change. All it will do is elicit bug
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> The sooner we declare Beta, the sooner people will test. Then we will
>> have user feedback, bugs to fix etc.. Everybody is very clearly
>> sitting idle. With a longer bug list we will m
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The correct question is whether we're ready for beta, and I would say
> the answer is clearly no, unless you have a pretty low standard for what
> "ready for beta" means. Perhaps it would be suitable to discuss what
> the standard for that rea
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The correct question is whether we're ready for beta, and I would say
> the answer is clearly no, unless you have a pretty low standard for what
> "ready for beta" means. Perhaps it would be suitable to discuss what
> the standard for that really
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I've never understood why we timebox useful development, yet tweaking
> is allowed to go on without limit. Personally, I don't see the
> rationale to allow developers some kind of priority over their input.
> This tweaking period is essentially
Simon Riggs writes:
> Judging by the number of new threads about development for 9.2, I
> think its time we declared 9.1 Beta. I just had a conversation with
> some Debian developers about how PostgreSQL 9.0 got pulled out of
> their release because we delayed by 3 weeks. So we missed our slot to
Judging by the number of new threads about development for 9.2, I
think its time we declared 9.1 Beta. I just had a conversation with
some Debian developers about how PostgreSQL 9.0 got pulled out of
their release because we delayed by 3 weeks. So we missed our slot to
deliver useful new features t
12 matches
Mail list logo
