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 84371D1D563; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:07:00 +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 25945-04; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:06:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (u46n208.hfx.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.208]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3EDD1CA92; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:02:27 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5558234045; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:00:01 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A9533CC5; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:00:01 -0400 (AST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:00:01 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" X-X-Sender: scrappy@ganymede.hub.org To: Peter Eisentraut Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" , Christopher Kings-Lynne , PostgreSQL Development Subject: Re: Release cycle length In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20031117225949.L731@ganymede.hub.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/923 X-Sequence-Number: 47211 On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Marc G. Fournier writes: > > > Right now, I believe we are looking at an April 1st beta, and a May 1st > > related ... those are, as always, *tentative* dates that will become more > > fine-tuned as those dates become nearer ... > > OK, here start the problems. Development already started, so April 1st is > already 5 months development. Add 1 month because no one is willing to > hold people to these dates. So that's 6 months. Then for 6 months of > development, you need at least 2 months of beta. So we're already in the > middle of July, everyone is on vacation, and we'll easily reach the 9 > months -- instead of 6. 'K, Sept 1st it is then ... sounds reasonable to me :)