Re: Release cycle length

Matthew T. O'Connor <matthew@zeut.net>

From: "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-11-18T02:49:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>Marc G. Fournier writes:
>  
>
>>Right now, I believe we are looking at an April 1st beta, and a May 1st
>>related ... those are, as always, *tentative* dates that will become more
>>fine-tuned as those dates become nearer ...
>>    
>>
>
>OK, here start the problems.  Development already started, so April 1st is
>already 5 months development.  Add 1 month because no one is willing to
>hold people to these dates.  So that's 6 months.  Then for 6 months of
>development, you need at least 2 months of beta.  So we're already in the
>middle of July, everyone is on vacation, and we'll easily reach the 9
>months -- instead of 6.
>  
>
Do you think that 2 months for beta is realistic?  Tom announced feature 
freeze on July 1.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-07/msg00040.php

So 7.4 took about 4.5 months to get from feature freeze to release.  I 
think feature freeze is the important date that developers of new 
features need to concern themselves with.

I agree with Peter's other comment, that the longer the development 
cycle, the longer the beta / bug shakeout period, perhaps a shorter dev 
cycle would yield a shorter beta period, but perhaps it would also 
result in a less solid release.