On 06/01/2015 07:11 PM, Arthur Silva wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:zen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: My comments advocating a (ubuntu/debian/linux-kernel/firefox) LTS release and feature-train release cycle: https://lwn.net/Articles/646740/ https://lwn.net/Articles/646743/ The parent article "PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly": https://lwn.net/Articles/645020/ My summary (from one of my comments above): "For PostgreSQL may be: - normal release every 3 or 4 months - LTS release every 12, 18 or 24 months This model provides: - higher frequency normal releases to a) showcase new features to the public and b) reduce pressure on developers wanting to not miss an "infrequent annual" release; and - lower frequency LTS releases to a) focus testing, stability and long term support resources b) satisfy "conservative/ enterprise" RDBMS admins " Regards, Zenaan -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general I'm surprised it got no replies so far. In my opinion a twice a year schedule would be good. The LTS would be every 2 or 4 releases. Keeping 2 LTS versions supported at all moments.
In my opinion, FWIW, that really does not change anything. Whether you are dealing with 20 new features over a year or 10 over half a year the same constraints apply, writing the code and getting it reviewed over a given time period. Add in the extra overhead costs of more frequent releases and I see no gain.
Maybe this should be reposted to the hackers list?
-- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
