Re: Release cycle length - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Release cycle length
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0311180329330.639-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Release cycle length  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: Release cycle length  ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>)
Re: Release cycle length  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
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@gmx.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: Release cycle length
Next
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: Release cycle length