On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:19:19 -0500
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:44:30AM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
> wrote:
> > That's why I wrote "without making it too formal" and "bland
> > commitment to the release schedule...".
> The problem with doing it that way is that, when the release fails
> to meet the original target deadline, any coverage of a new release
> will inevitably include notes remarks about how the release was
> "six months late" or whatever. The computer press is driven mostly
So? Comparably you've more commitment with your user base than with
the press. I think the user base will appreciate to have a rough idea
without resorting into digging into 3 months old announcement or
what else.
> by commercial firms, who have to have software schedules because
> that's how they pay their bills.
If you're so concerned about journalists (and concurrences) what do
you think will stop them about writing pg doesn't have a clear
schedule bla bla bla...?
A lot of people are betting on the advancement and feature additions
of the unnamed concurrence for example... and claiming there won't be
any reason to use pg shortly... since the unnamed concurrence is
catching up.
Is it just vaporware... maybe... but still there are pros and cons of
having a bland schedule for EOL and new releases.
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it
