Re: 8.4 release planning

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning
Date: 2009-01-26 16:33:18
Message-ID: 11932.1232987598@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> What about a compromise solution: release 8.4 now, then focus on
>> wrapping up the big ticket items that didn't make it into 8.4 into a
>> quick (as possible) 8.5 release. This means no fests.

> That would depend on timing then. Trying to get people to upgrade to 8.4 is
> going to be difficult if they're waiting on Hot Standby, which means less
> in-the-field testing of the 8.4 code base until the 8.5 release.

[ deja vu... ] Just like no one was going to bother upgrading to 8.3
because what they wanted wouldn't be there till 8.4, and the similar
claims we heard about 8.2 and 8.1 before that ...

> Similarly,
> if we're looking at a quick 8.5 around September/October (having no commit
> fests), that means it will probably be early 2011 for 8.6, which is fairly
> unacceptable for the other patches currently in the queue.

Right, one of the major considerations here is allowing other
development to get started again (and not be looking at two years wait
to see the light of day).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2009-01-26 16:35:27 Re: 8.4 release planning
Previous Message David Fetter 2009-01-26 16:30:54 Re: problem with archive_command as suggested by documentation