On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
Well, the small patches are not going to hold us up much. I don't
think having to deal with those is going to impact the schedule, even
if they are new. It's the big ones that are going to drain time from
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-01-11 03:55:50|
|Subject: Re: quoting psql varible as identifier|
|Previous:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2010-01-11 03:10:56|
|Subject: Re: RADIUS authentication|