X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D78ED1B527; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:01:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92235-10; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:00:57 -0400 (AST) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (u46n208.hfx.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.208]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293A5D1C9BB; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:00:54 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9AB8935E68; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:58:26 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AE9355B0; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:58:26 -0400 (AST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:58:26 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" X-X-Sender: scrappy@ganymede.hub.org To: "Marc G. Fournier" Cc: Peter Eisentraut , PostgreSQL Development Subject: Re: Release cycle length In-Reply-To: <20031117204606.W731@ganymede.hub.org> Message-ID: <20031117205748.A731@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20031117204606.W731@ganymede.hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/898 X-Sequence-Number: 47186 Just did a quick search on archives, and the original plan was for a release in mid-2003, which means the beta would have been *at least* a month before that, so beta starting around May: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-11/msg00975.php On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > Marc G. Fournier writes: > > > > > That is the usual goal *nod* Same goal we try for each release, and never > > > quite seem to get there ... we'll try 'yet again' with 7.5 though, as we > > > always do :) > > > > I don't see how we could have tried for a 4-month development period and > > ended up with an 8-month period. Something went *really* wrong there. > > Part of that may have been that few people were actually aware of that > > schedule. > > Everyone on -hackers should have been aware of it, as its always > discussed at the end of the previous release cycle ... and I don't think > we've hit a release cycle yet that has actually stayed in the 4 month > period :( Someone is always 'just sitting on something that is almost > done' at the end that pushes it further then originally planned ... > > > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664