This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Odd release numbers for development versions? From: Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:49:32 -0400 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. === Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Odd release numbers for development versions? From: Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:13:31 -0400 On Tue, 06 Jun 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > > anon CVS and update as often as you need to. There is absolutely no > > need for a Linux-style release system with CVS. > Seems like the main > practical difference from the Linux release model is that we don't > bother to make formal labeled/numbered tarballs of the development track > until we are in beta-test cycle. You want development track at other > times, you just grab the latest sources. > So far, the alternating development and betatest/bugfix cycle has worked > really well for the needs of the Postgres project, so I don't think > anyone is eager to change that approach. With our use of CVS, there is no need for the split release, IOW. We have a similar, yet more open system here -- one I rather like. Of course, if you just read the website, you don't get that feeling -- it takes a year or so on the list to really understand what this group is all about. (No criticism intended of the website, Vince -- it does its job nicely). For the first two years of my use of PostgreSQL, the only information I had was on the website -- boy, was I in for a pleasant surprise when I subscribed to this list! Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Odd release numbers for development versions? From: Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:13:31 -0400 On Tue, 06 Jun 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > > anon CVS and update as often as you need to. There is absolutely no > > need for a Linux-style release system with CVS. > Seems like the main > practical difference from the Linux release model is that we don't > bother to make formal labeled/numbered tarballs of the development track > until we are in beta-test cycle. You want development track at other > times, you just grab the latest sources. > So far, the alternating development and betatest/bugfix cycle has worked > really well for the needs of the Postgres project, so I don't think > anyone is eager to change that approach. With our use of CVS, there is no need for the split release, IOW. We have a similar, yet more open system here -- one I rather like. Of course, if you just read the website, you don't get that feeling -- it takes a year or so on the list to really understand what this group is all about. (No criticism intended of the website, Vince -- it does its job nicely). For the first two years of my use of PostgreSQL, the only information I had was on the website -- boy, was I in for a pleasant surprise when I subscribed to this list! ===