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 5998ED1C9CD for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:12:22 +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 94020-07 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:11:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D883BD1C9B7 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:11:49 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 25307 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Nov 2003 01:11:53 -0000 Received: from dsl-082-082-166-244.arcor-ip.net (EHLO [192.168.2.136]) (82.82.166.244) by mail.gmx.net (mp014) with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 02:11:53 +0100 X-Authenticated: #495269 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:12:09 +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: <20031117205748.A731@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: 200311/901 X-Sequence-Number: 47189 Marc G. Fournier writes: > 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 That was a Bruce Momjian estimate mentioned in passing, not an affirmed plan. Also, I think Bruce's estimates are notoriously off by years. ;-) -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net