Re: Going for Gold

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "pgadmin-hackers" <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Going for Gold
Date: 2004-11-29 14:43:31
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4527B98@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgadmin-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgadmin-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
> Andreas Pflug
> Sent: 29 November 2004 10:24
> To: pgadmin-hackers
> Subject: [pgadmin-hackers] Going for Gold
>
> Hi friends,
>
> seems pgAdmin III 1.2RC is matured, should we make it Gold
> now? Tom Lane promised to avoid further changes to the pgsql
> system schema, so hopefully we won't face similar problems as
> with beta4->beta5 again.
>
> As soon as pgsql8.0 is out, we can roll 1.2.1 to update the
> documentation to the release version, but we shouldn't delay
> 1.2.0 for it.

Sounds good to me. Are the docs/screenshots/pg docs etc up to date?

I can probably roll it tomorrow.... (following which I'll branch for
-patches)

/D

Responses

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2004-11-29 15:32:35 Re: Going for Gold
Previous Message Troels Arvin 2004-11-29 11:39:00 Re: Going for Gold