Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I am concerned about slowing down too early. We did that in previous
> > > > releases and didn't get the beta focus we needed, and it was too
> > > > paralyzing on people to know what is to be slowed and what to keep
> > > > going. I think a slowdown two weeks before beta would be fine.
> > >
> > > Other then personal slow downs, there is no reason for anything to "slow
> > > down" until beta itself starts ...
> >
> > I assume Tom doesn't want a huge patch applied the day before beta, and
>
> No offence to Tom, but who cares whether Tom wants a huge patch or not?
Well, he does clean up lots of breakage, so I was willing to settle on a
compromise of 2 weeks. However, if other feel we should just go
full-bore until beta starts, I am fine with that.
I will say that I was disapointed by previous release delays and will be
more vocal about moving things forward than I have in the past.
> > I can understand that, but patch problems usually appear within two
> > weeks of application, so I think we only have to worry about those last
> > two weeks. Of course, another option is to continue in full development
> > until the end of August, then start beta in September as soon as the
> > code is stable.
>
> That kinda was the plan ... code will be frozen around the 1st of
> September, with a release packaged then that will be label'd beta1 ...
> regardless of how stable it is ... beta is "we're not taking any more
> changes except fixes, so pound on this and let us know what needs to be
> fixed" ... there shouldn't be any 'lead up' to beta, the lead up is the
> development period itself ... *shrug*
Agreed.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
