Prev: [HACKERS] PG 9.0 release timetable
Next: : CRC32 is limiting at COPY/CTAS/INSERT ... SELECT + speeding it up
From: Magnus Hagander on 31 May 2010 11:34
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> > I find myself entirely unimpressed by proposals to make releases
>> > according to some rigid schedule that takes no account of whether
>> > packaging manpower is actually available.
>>
>> How many beta testers out there *rely* on a package to do their testing?
>> I'm not saying don't try and get packages in place, I'm just saying it
>> shouldn't be a requirement to stamp code BETA and create a tar ball ...

My guess would be "most of them".

Unlike alphas where most probably just work off a tree - or so it seems.

That's obviously going to be very platform dependent.


> Well, they can just grab nightly snapshots and test, right?  I don't
> think a beta is fundamentally different from a nightly snapshot,
> source-code wise.

Source-code wise, no, it's not - except that it's a well defined point
in time, so it's easier to report bugs against, and to search for
known bugs against.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

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

From: "Marc G. Fournier" on 31 May 2010 11:46
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(a)hub.org> writes:
>> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Well, they can just grab nightly snapshots and test, right? I don't
>>> think a beta is fundamentally different from a nightly snapshot,
>>> source-code wise.
>
>> doesn't really give a good reference point for testing purposes ...
>
> It's also inferior from a documentation standpoint --- we don't update
> the release notes nightly.

There are three things that *have* to be involved in doing a Beta:

translation updated
release notes
tar ball

There doesn't need to be any web site announce or anything, only a note
out to -hackers that we have a new beta ready for testing ...

If we were to do that every 2 weeks, on a Friday, then any packagers that
are able to can get their package ready and up for testing ... but, for
those that are able to build from sources (I would hope any/everyone on
-hackers can handle that?), they would have a firm release to build / run
tests on that includes all bugs fixed in the previous 2 weeks ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A.
scrappy(a)hub.org http://www.hub.org

Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy(a)hub.org

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

From: Tom Lane on 31 May 2010 11:48
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(a)hub.org> writes:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I find myself entirely unimpressed by proposals to make releases
>> according to some rigid schedule that takes no account of whether
>> packaging manpower is actually available.

> How many beta testers out there *rely* on a package to do their testing?

A lot of them --- probably approximately 100% of the Windows population,
for example. People who are capable of working from source are likely
not waiting for beta packages anyway, just using CVS or nightly
snapshots.

> I'm not saying don't try and get packages in place, I'm just saying it
> shouldn't be a requirement to stamp code BETA and create a tar ball ...

There's more work that goes into a beta release than just stamping,
as you should know as well as anyone. Otherwise we might as well call
the nightly snapshots beta releases.

regards, tom lane

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

From: Simon Riggs on 31 May 2010 12:14
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 11:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > We're currently at 4 weeks since last beta, with no new beta in sight.
>
> Eh?
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01649.php
> You can hardly claim to have not seen it.

Yes, completely wrong. A sunny weekend away wiped my mind. Hopefully
that doesn't detract from the other points I made.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com


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

From: Simon Riggs on 31 May 2010 12:24
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 11:30 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Well, they can just grab nightly snapshots and test, right? I don't
> think a beta is fundamentally different from a nightly snapshot,
> source-code wise.

There is only one difference: the signal to re-test.

Most people read "new beta" as meaning "we fixed the bugs, try again
now". The delivery mechanism is unimportant.

IMHO the amount of testing we get is directly proportional to number of
announced beta releases, since most tests get run in first week.

If packaging is the issue, lets announce packaged releases every 4 weeks
and non-packaged snapshots every 2 weeks.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com


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

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: [HACKERS] PG 9.0 release timetable
Next: : CRC32 is limiting at COPY/CTAS/INSERT ... SELECT + speeding it up