Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >But following through a cycle or two in the archives provides ample evidence > >for the 'laid-back' model used here. It's ready when it's ready. We try to > >schedule, but the schedules are pretty flexible. > > > >And while most discussion happens here on [HACKERS], not all of it does. Some > >happens on IRC, some in [CORE], and some by telephone. And it's been that > >way for a while. > > > >PostgreSQL is not a 'release early, release often' project. And that's OK. > > > > > > If it were true that June 1 was the expected Beta data, then perhaps > that should be in the FAQ too, as a counterweight to the gratuitously > patronising advice which, had I followed it, might have resulted in my > not making a number of contributions. > > But it is not true. I have already pointed out what Tom said on March > 31: " There's not really a plan at the moment, but I had June in the > back of my head as a good time". IOW, June was a possible month, > nothing was settled, certainly not a definite day. So ISTM your premise > is simply wrong. > > All I have asked for is a) reasonable clarity and b) reasonable notice. > I do not see that either of those conflict with being laid-back or > anything else above.
I believe the decision for June 1 was made around May 1. I participated in the discussion. Should we have made that final decision sooner? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
