| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion |
| Date: | 2004-04-30 04:18:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20040430011641.Q45839@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > I guess my point is really "do you want to freeze on June 1 if *none* of
> > > these features are done?"
> >
> > No, I agree that that would be foolish ... but there has also been alot
> > done on the code over the past few months that even *one* of those
> > features should be enough to put it over the top ...
>
> But we should have at least one done before setting a freeze date, and
> the freeze date should be one month in the future. Right now we have
> none.
Now, that logic *doesn't* follow ... freeze date == that one feature makes
more sense ... or freeze date == one month from May 1st *or* one feature,
whichever is longer makes sense ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-04-30 04:24:42 | Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-04-30 04:06:52 | Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion |