On sön, 2010-01-10 at 01:38 -0500, Tom Lane 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.
Maybe we need to ponder for a minute what beta ought to mean for us.
With all the new processes and guidelines being established, the
transition criteria into and out of beta are in my mind pretty weakly
defined.
