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 94682D1B584 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:33:37 +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 13202-07 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:33:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C065D1CC84 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:33:05 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 30068 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Nov 2003 02:33:09 -0000 Received: from dsl-082-082-166-244.arcor-ip.net (EHLO [192.168.2.136]) (82.82.166.244) by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 03:33:09 +0100 X-Authenticated: #495269 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:33:25 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut X-X-Sender: peter@peter.localdomain To: "Marc G. Fournier" Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne , PostgreSQL Development Subject: Re: Release cycle length In-Reply-To: <20031117221338.R731@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: 200311/916 X-Sequence-Number: 47204 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. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net