Prev: no universally correct setting for fsync
Next: beta to release
From: Robert Haas on 7 May 2010 10:36
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote:
>> > What amazes me is how many people who closely follow our development are
>> > mystified by what we do during that pre-beta period.
>>
>> Hey, I'm still mystified.  Maybe you and Tom could do twice-a-week
>> status updates on what you're working on and anything you could use
>> help with, or something.
>
> Yea, that would probably help.  I know I am not very transparent in this
> area.

I was fairly satisfied with the way that our path from the end of the
last CommitFest to beta unfolded from a process standpoint this time
(if not entirely from a time standpoint, but that's my own fault as
much as anyone - the rest of my life got in the way of PostgreSQL).
We had a list of open items on the wiki (actually several lists which
were eventually merged) which we worked through and then released
beta1. I felt like that was pretty transparent and I understood what
the blockers were When we cleared them, we went onto the next thing.

I am fuzzier on what happens now. I understand that it depends on
what bug reports we get as a result of beta testing, but what I don't
quite know is what the expectations are for individual developers, how
we're tracking what issues still need to be resolved, or what the
process is for deciding when it's time to release. Any clarification
from the old hands who have been through this few times before would
be much appreciated.

Thanks,

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: no universally correct setting for fsync
Next: beta to release