Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.132.154]) by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e983cnJ27292 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 23:38:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e983cXB19715; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 23:38:33 -0400 (EDT) To: The Hermit Hacker cc: "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Announce: Release of PyGreSQL version 3.0 In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to The Hermit Hacker message dated "Sat, 07 Oct 2000 21:13:47 -0300" Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 23:38:32 -0400 Message-ID: <19712.970976312@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200010/165 The Hermit Hacker writes: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Tom Lane wrote: >> darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes: >>>> When is 7.1 being locked down? I may be releasing 3.1 with a few small >>>> fixes and changes very soon. >> >> You've probably got about 2 weeks before beta starts. Bug fixes are >> accepted during beta freeze, of course --- just no new-feature >> development. > how are we dealing with third party software like this though? Stuff like > PyGreSQL and PGAccess should be "at the authors discretion", no? As they > don't interfere with the core functionality and build of the system? Well, a third party author always has the option to release his code separately on whatever timeline seems good to him. But I think that for third-party code included in the distribution, the same standards ought to apply as for the Postgres code itself: we don't want people sticking alpha-quality code into a Postgres release tarball, whether it's core functionality or not. It's not as if "no new features for a month" is a particularly onerous standard to meet ;-) regards, tom lane