From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Beta Schedule (was Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:30:35 -0800
Message-ID: <3E6D2E2B.2070905@joeconway.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25711.1047339387@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200303102330.h2ANUii26036@candle.pha.pa.us>
<25711.1047339387@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane wrote:
> "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.
>
FWIW, if we're voting, I'd say:
1. on "firm date" vs "when feature x is ready": I vote "firm date" -- I
know that last August the firm beta start date motivated me to get some
things done that I would have dragged out without the scheduled cutoff.
2. June 1 beta cutoff sounds about right.
Joe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: mail@joeconway.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, justin@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Beta Schedule (was Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign)
In-Reply-To: <3E6D2E2B.2070905@joeconway.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox