Second try for roadmap.html

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

Josh,

> ! <ul>
> !   <li>March 31, 2007 - Feature Freeze</li>
> !   <li>May-June 2007 - Beta begins</li>
> !   <li>July-August 2007 - 8.3 Released</li>
> !   <li>September 2007 - 8.4 development begins</li>
> !   <li>March 31, 2008  Feature freeze for 8.4 (tentative)</li>
> ! </ul>

I don't think those release dates are realistic. 8.3 release would be August
at the earliest, and more likely September or October. There's no reason to
confuse people with false expectations.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Josh,
>
>> ! <ul>
>> ! <li>March 31, 2007 - Feature Freeze</li>
>> ! <li>May-June 2007 - Beta begins</li>
>> ! <li>July-August 2007 - 8.3 Released</li>
>> ! <li>September 2007 - 8.4 development begins</li>
>> ! <li>March 31, 2008 Feature freeze for 8.4 (tentative)</li>
>> ! </ul>
>
> I don't think those release dates are realistic. 8.3 release would be August
> at the earliest, and more likely September or October. There's no reason to
> confuse people with false expectations.

If that is the case, we have likely solved nothing with our movement of
the dates to have 8.3 be a short cycle release.

I thought the whole goal was to try and release around july.

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

Josh,

> If that is the case, we have likely solved nothing with our movement of
> the dates to have 8.3 be a short cycle release.

The point was to move the ingration/patch review period, which we have. Any
move-up of the actual release date is incidental.

> I thought the whole goal was to try and release around july.

No, what gave you that idea? When have we *ever* done a 1-month beta?

If there are absolutely no beta issues we can do another 8.1 and release at
OSCON or something. But with invasive changes like HOT a probable
submission for 8.3, a short beta seems very optimistic.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

On Tuesday 27 February 2007 20:33, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Josh,
>
> > If that is the case, we have likely solved nothing with our movement of
> > the dates to have 8.3 be a short cycle release.
>
> The point was to move the ingration/patch review period, which we have.
> Any move-up of the actual release date is incidental.
>
> > I thought the whole goal was to try and release around july.
>
> No, what gave you that idea? When have we *ever* done a 1-month beta?
>
> If there are absolutely no beta issues we can do another 8.1 and release at
> OSCON or something. But with invasive changes like HOT a probable
> submission for 8.3, a short beta seems very optimistic.

If feature freeze is April 1st, and OSCon is July 24th, thats around 4 months
to get the release done. Given how things like the buildfarm. and our theory
that the new timeframe should help shorten the release process, I don't think
this is that unrealistic.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 February 2007 20:33, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Josh,
>>
>>> If that is the case, we have likely solved nothing with our movement of
>>> the dates to have 8.3 be a short cycle release.
>> The point was to move the ingration/patch review period, which we have.
>> Any move-up of the actual release date is incidental.
>>
>>> I thought the whole goal was to try and release around july.
>> No, what gave you that idea? When have we *ever* done a 1-month beta?
>>
>> If there are absolutely no beta issues we can do another 8.1 and release at
>> OSCON or something. But with invasive changes like HOT a probable
>> submission for 8.3, a short beta seems very optimistic.
>
> If feature freeze is April 1st, and OSCon is July 24th, thats around 4 months
> to get the release done. Given how things like the buildfarm. and our theory
> that the new timeframe should help shorten the release process, I don't think
> this is that unrealistic.

That is kind of what I thought.

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>>>> If that is the case, we have likely solved nothing with our movement of
>>>> the dates to have 8.3 be a short cycle release.

>> If feature freeze is April 1st, and OSCon is July 24th, thats around
>> 4 months to get the release done. Given how things like the
>> buildfarm. and our theory that the new timeframe should help shorten
>> the release process, I don't think this is that unrealistic.

> That is kind of what I thought.

Josh is nowhere in line with what I thought the plan was. We're busting
our butts to have a short release cycle, and then we're going to piss it
all away after feature freeze? Nope. I thought we were hoping for
release June-ish, or worst case July-ish. A short devel cycle should
not need a slow test cycle.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Robert Treat wrote:
>>>>> If that is the case, we have likely solved nothing with our movement of
>>>>> the dates to have 8.3 be a short cycle release.
>
>>> If feature freeze is April 1st, and OSCon is July 24th, thats around
>>> 4 months to get the release done. Given how things like the
>>> buildfarm. and our theory that the new timeframe should help shorten
>>> the release process, I don't think this is that unrealistic.
>
>> That is kind of what I thought.
>
> Josh is nowhere in line with what I thought the plan was. We're busting
> our butts to have a short release cycle, and then we're going to piss it
> all away after feature freeze? Nope. I thought we were hoping for
> release June-ish, or worst case July-ish. A short devel cycle should
> not need a slow test cycle.

O.k. good, that is what I thought as well. I have actually been kind of
betting on a 8.3 release for OSCON.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> regards, tom lane
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:08:12AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> --
>

> Index: roadmap.html
<snip>

I assume these changes are either incorporated in or obsoleted by the
stuff that xzilla committed?

(the developer parts, that is)

//Magnus

On Monday 05 March 2007 08:07, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:08:12AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > --
> >
> >
> > Index: roadmap.html
>
> <snip>
>
> I assume these changes are either incorporated in or obsoleted by the
> stuff that xzilla committed?
>
> (the developer parts, that is)
>

I think my update incorporates most of the ideas mention in the various
threads, though I'd still like to see the write up on how the postgresql
development process works. I'd probably add that under the main developer
section though.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

>
> I assume these changes are either incorporated in or obsoleted by the
> stuff that xzilla committed?
>
> (the developer parts, that is)
>
Well except that the dates on the current (xzilla's commit) are wrong.

Joshua D. Drake

> //Magnus
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
>

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > I assume these changes are either incorporated in or obsoleted by the
> > stuff that xzilla committed?
> >
> > (the developer parts, that is)
> >
> Well except that the dates on the current (xzilla's commit) are wrong.
>
> Joshua D. Drake

Yep, I see that now. Please use only this:

<LI>March 1, 2007 - Initial community review of all major feature patches</LI>
<LI>April 1, 2007 - Feature freeze, all patches must be submitted for review and application</LI>
<LI>mid-May, 2007 - All patches applied, beta testing begins</LI>
<LI>July, 2007 - Release of 8.3.0</LI>

I am a little disturbed people feel free to make up dates with no
discussion.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

>
> Yep, I see that now. Please use only this:
>
> <LI>March 1, 2007 - Initial community review of all major feature patches</LI>
> <LI>April 1, 2007 - Feature freeze, all patches must be submitted for review and application</LI>
> <LI>mid-May, 2007 - All patches applied, beta testing begins</LI>
> <LI>July, 2007 - Release of 8.3.0</LI>
>
> I am a little disturbed people feel free to make up dates with no
> discussion.
>

So there is no confusion, it is my understanding that this has always
been the plan.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

On Monday 05 March 2007 20:35, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Yep, I see that now. Please use only this:
> >
> > <LI>March 1, 2007 - Initial community review of all major feature
> > patches</LI> <LI>April 1, 2007 - Feature freeze, all patches must be
> > submitted for review and application</LI> <LI>mid-May, 2007 - All patches
> > applied, beta testing begins</LI> <LI>July, 2007 - Release of 8.3.0</LI>
> >
> > I am a little disturbed people feel free to make up dates with no
> > discussion.
>

Quite frankly I'm a little upset that you would bandy about such statements so
casually. If that was directed at me, may I politley suggest you sod off.

> So there is no confusion, it is my understanding that this has always
> been the plan.
>

So there is even less confusion, let people be aware that I copy/pasted those
dates from the email that Joshua sent originally:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-02/msg00278.php. In the thread
that follows no one offers a specific corrected timeline and Tom even wieghs
in with what would appear to be acceptence of the timeline Joshua presented.

I've corrected the timeline in cvs and it will appear in the next site update,
hopefully we can all move on...

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Monday 05 March 2007 20:35, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>> Yep, I see that now. Please use only this:
>>>
>>> <LI>March 1, 2007 - Initial community review of all major feature
>>> patches</LI> <LI>April 1, 2007 - Feature freeze, all patches must be
>>> submitted for review and application</LI> <LI>mid-May, 2007 - All patches
>>> applied, beta testing begins</LI> <LI>July, 2007 - Release of 8.3.0</LI>
>>>
>>> I am a little disturbed people feel free to make up dates with no
>>> discussion.
>>>
>
> Quite frankly I'm a little upset that you would bandy about such statements so
> casually. If that was directed at me, may I politley suggest you sod off.
>
I don't think it was directed at you.

> So there is even less confusion, let people be aware that I copy/pasted those
> dates from the email that Joshua sent originally:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-02/msg00278.php. In the thread
> that follows no one offers a specific corrected timeline and Tom even wieghs
> in with what would appear to be acceptence of the timeline Joshua presented.
>
I think you are confusing my timelime with JoshB's timeline. My timeline
showed us releasing in June or July.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> I've corrected the timeline in cvs and it will appear in the next site update,
> hopefully we can all move on...
>
>

...fights... urge... to... respond...
<fails>

On Tuesday 06 March 2007 17:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > So there is even less confusion, let people be aware that I copy/pasted
> > those dates from the email that Joshua sent originally:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-02/msg00278.php. In the
> > thread that follows no one offers a specific corrected timeline and Tom
> > even wieghs in with what would appear to be acceptence of the timeline
> > Joshua presented.
>
> I think you are confusing my timelime with JoshB's timeline. My timeline
> showed us releasing in June or July.
>

Here is a link to the patch you posted:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-02/msg00278.php

Here is my commit which includes those same dates:
http://gborg.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/portal/template/en/developer/roadmap.html.diff?r1=1.8;r2=1.9;cvsroot=pgweb

Here is you saying that what I committed was incorrect:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-03/msg00008.php

Not sure what else to add to this...

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

>
> Here is a link to the patch you posted:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-02/msg00278.php
>
> Here is my commit which includes those same dates:
> http://gborg.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/portal/template/en/developer/roadmap.html.diff?r1=1.8;r2=1.9;cvsroot=pgweb
>
> Here is you saying that what I committed was incorrect:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-03/msg00008.php
>
> Not sure what else to add to this...
>
Heh nothing. I think what I "read" was JoshB's dates which were clearly
wrong. I apologize if that is the case. I am out of town and thus
may not be paying as close attention as I should. The current update
looks good, thanks Robert.

Joshua D. Drake

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > Here is a link to the patch you posted:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-02/msg00278.php
> >
> > Here is my commit which includes those same dates:
> > http://gborg.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/portal/template/en/developer/roadmap.html.diff?r1=1.8;r2=1.9;cvsroot=pgweb
> >
> > Here is you saying that what I committed was incorrect:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-03/msg00008.php
> >
> > Not sure what else to add to this...
> >
> Heh nothing. I think what I "read" was JoshB's dates which were clearly
> wrong. I apologize if that is the case. I am out of town and thus
> may not be paying as close attention as I should. The current update
> looks good, thanks Robert.

Now that I am back from vacation, I wanted to clarify my "concern" on
this issue. I wasn't worried about any individuals involved. I know
everyone is doing the best they can.

I was concerned whether we had an adequate process in place. For
example, should we be supplying patches to the www team so the changes
we want are clearer? I certainly would not make complex changes to the
C code based on instructions like "Add a variable to the top of function
X".

Anyway, it seems the people involved feel we don't need to change the
process, so I will go back to not being concerned.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +