Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:50:58 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Bad news approval
Message-ID: <20090317185058.GI4202@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <49BD7159.6070709@agliodbs.com>
	<200903170029.26717.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
	<200903170903.31902.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<200903171429.04204.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200903171429.04204.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2009 12:03:31 Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Robert,
> >
> > > That was my bad. For some reason I thought we had an exception for
> > > products that are introducing PostgreSQL support into thier products. I
> > > guess that isn't the case?
> >
> > Yeah, but not betas.  Look at it this way; if we're only allowing them one
> > announcement per 6 months, then their final release will get no
> > announcement.
> 
> Well, this assumes the final release is within 6 months of the beta 
> announcement, which is probably true, though GMail is still in beta. I guess 
> assuming a priori knowledge of the product release cycle should be done in 
> favor of increasing the beta pool to help ensure solid support upon release. 

Actually this makes a lot of sense.  Surely we'd like top-notch Postgres
support on proprietary products, right?  What about changing the policy
to admit one beta announcement and one final release, even if they are
closer than 6 months apart?

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.