| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Release cycle length |
| Date: | 2003-11-18 02:33:25 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0311180329330.639-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Marc G. Fournier writes:
> Right now, I believe we are looking at an April 1st beta, and a May 1st
> related ... those are, as always, *tentative* dates that will become more
> fine-tuned as those dates become nearer ...
OK, here start the problems. Development already started, so April 1st is
already 5 months development. Add 1 month because no one is willing to
hold people to these dates. So that's 6 months. Then for 6 months of
development, you need at least 2 months of beta. So we're already in the
middle of July, everyone is on vacation, and we'll easily reach the 9
months -- instead of 6.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-11-18 02:33:30 | Re: Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-11-18 02:32:56 | Re: Release cycle length |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-11-18 02:33:30 | Re: Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-11-18 02:32:56 | Re: Release cycle length |