Re: Odd release numbers for development versions?
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
From: Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Robert B. Easter" <reaster@comptechnews.com>,
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2000-06-06T18:49:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote: > > "Robert B. Easter" <reaster@comptechnews.com> writes: > > Like 7.0.x would be the current stable branch. 7.1.x, the current > > development branch. The next stable branch would be 7.2.x. Within > > the current even release stable branch, maybe only do bug fixes. In > > the odd dev releases, focus on new/experiemental. Both branches could > > have very frequent *.x revisions/builds. > This has been proposed before, and rejected before. The key developers > mostly don't believe that the Linux style "release early, release often" > approach is appropriate for the Postgres project. Few people are > interested in running beta-quality databases, so there's no point in > going to the effort of maintaining two development tracks. If the Linux kernel used CVS like a reasonable Free Software effort, then the current odd/even split wouldn't even be necessary. We use CVS -- if you want development trees to play with, you fetch the tree by anon CVS and update as often as you need to. There is absolutely no need for a Linux-style release system with CVS. Don't get me wrong; I like and use Linux. I just like the PostgreSQL development model better. "Release Stable; release when necessary" is all that is needed when the developers use CVS properly. You want to be a developer? Grab the CVS tree and start hacking. Patches are readily accepted if they are acceptable. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11