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 093D5D1C9D8 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:45:01 +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 92537-02 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:44:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 88D7BD1C9BC for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:44:29 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 4111 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Nov 2003 00:44:32 -0000 Received: from dsl-082-082-166-244.arcor-ip.net (EHLO [192.168.2.136]) (82.82.166.244) by mail.gmx.net (mp027) with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 01:44:32 +0100 X-Authenticated: #495269 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:44:48 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut X-X-Sender: peter@peter.localdomain To: "Marc G. Fournier" Cc: PostgreSQL Development Subject: Re: Release cycle length In-Reply-To: <20031117202346.M731@ganymede.hub.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/894 X-Sequence-Number: 47182 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. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net