From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Beta Schedule (was Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign) |
Date: | 2003-03-11 00:30:35 |
Message-ID: | 3E6D2E2B.2070905@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Enough features" is such a judgment call that no one can predict what
> the schedule will be, if that's part of the decision.
>
> I had been leaning to May 1 beta, but am happy to switch to June 1 if
> you feel that makes an improvement in the odds of completing the Windows
> port. (I think it will also improve the odds of finishing this protocol
> stuff I've taken on...) I don't want to see it pushed further than that
> without good concrete arguments for doing so.
>
FWIW, if we're voting, I'd say:
1. on "firm date" vs "when feature x is ready": I vote "firm date" -- I
know that last August the firm beta start date motivated me to get some
things done that I would have dragged out without the scheduled cutoff.
2. June 1 beta cutoff sounds about right.
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-11 00:48:41 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2003-03-11 00:12:19 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-11 00:48:41 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2003-03-11 00:12:19 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |