> Now the other approach we could take is that we'll ship *something*
> on 7 Mar, even if it's less stable than what we've traditionally
> considered to be beta quality. I don't think that really helps
> much though; it just means we need more time in beta.
Well, we're shipping an alpha, aren't we?
My proposal for "beta in 2 weeks" was based on the idea of having *no*
new patches in CF4, at all. Given the reality of HS+SR, I don't think
it's realistic anymore either.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-01-10 23:27:53|
|Subject: Re: Typed tables|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-01-10 23:18:23|
|Subject: Re: Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH]|