X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Received: from joeconway.com (63-210-180-150.skyriver.net [63.210.180.150])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1A4B6475FC8; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:32:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [206.19.64.3] (account jconway HELO joeconway.com)
	by joeconway.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.4)
	with ESMTP-TLS id 1652062; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:08:43 -0800
Message-ID: <3E6D2E2B.2070905@joeconway.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:30:35 -0800
From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
	rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Beta Schedule (was Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign)
References: <200303102330.h2ANUii26036@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<25711.1047339387@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <25711.1047339387@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archive-Number: 200303/400
X-Sequence-Number: 36646

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