X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6FC475AE5; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2ANaRub025712; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:36:27 -0500 (EST) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Justin Clift , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Beta Schedule (was Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign) In-reply-to: <200303102330.h2ANUii26036@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200303102330.h2ANUii26036@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:30:44 -0500" Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:36:27 -0500 Message-ID: <25711.1047339387@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200303/398 X-Sequence-Number: 36644 Bruce Momjian writes: > So, what should we do? Should we go another month or two and just wait > until we have enough must-have features? While not waiting on specific > features, it _is_ waiting for something to warrant a release. I guess > the big question is whether we release on a scheduled-basis or a > enough-features-basis. "Enough features" is such a judgment call that no one can predict what the schedule will be, if that's part of the decision. I had been leaning to May 1 beta, but am happy to switch to June 1 if you feel that makes an improvement in the odds of completing the Windows port. (I think it will also improve the odds of finishing this protocol stuff I've taken on...) I don't want to see it pushed further than that without good concrete arguments for doing so. regards, tom lane