Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I understand. You are saying that we couldn't set the date until May 1,
> but on May 1 we should have set the date farther way, like 6-8 weeks,
> rather than 4.5 weeks, right?
I think there are a couple of important points in this discussion.
One is th
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >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?
> >
> >
> >
>
> No, I think that was the right time to make a decision. Before that
> things we
Lamar Owen wrote:
Please lighten up, that's all. That's one thing I have found helps in this
project, and maybe it's not something I made clear, but we are 'laid back'
including a fair amount of humor. A good portion of that goes on privately;
I remember ribbing Bruce a couple of cycles back
On Saturday 05 June 2004 10:13, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> >There is a reason I wrote the message a long time ago (that, I think, is
> > still in the Developer's FAQ) about how to get started in PostgreSQL
> > development. The first thing a developer should do before getting too
>
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
No, I think that was the right time to make a decision. Before that
things were in a great state of flux. My suggestion is that there should
be some minimum time (I suggested 6 weeks to 2
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
No, I think that was the right time to make a decision. Before that
things were in a great state of flux. My suggestion is that there
should be some minimum time (I suggested 6 weeks to 2 months) between
when the decision is made
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
No, I think that was the right time to make a decision. Before that
things were in a great state of flux. My suggestion is that there should
be some minimum time (I suggested 6 weeks to 2 months) between when the
decision is made/announced and the actual
Bruce Momjian wrote:
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?
No, I think that was the right time to make a decision. Before that
things were in a great state of flux. My suggestion is that there
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
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.
Something we definitely will work on, in both cases ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org
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
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday 01 June 2004 22:15, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
Well, it should not have surprised anyone. We have targeted June 1 as a
beta freeze date for several versions, not just 7.5. In fact, looking
back through last year's pre-7.4 discussion, it's deja vu
On Tuesday 01 June 2004 22:15, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> >Well, it should not have surprised anyone. We have targeted June 1 as a
> > beta freeze date for several versions, not just 7.5. In fact, looking
> > back through last year's pre-7.4 discussion, it's deja vu all over
> >
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> That seems to indicate that at that stage, barely 2 months ago, the
> month was not definite, let alone the day.
>
> I confess that as a newcomer I was not around before the 7.4 cycle, so
> saying that people should have known the freeze date because it is
> following
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday 01 June 2004 16:08, Simon Riggs wrote:
The June 1st date was first mentioned on list in mid-March (to me), but
wasn't generally announced until May under a specific heading. If it was
set in January, I was never knowingly party to that info.
Well, it should not
On Tuesday 01 June 2004 16:08, Simon Riggs wrote:
> The June 1st date was first mentioned on list in mid-March (to me), but
> wasn't generally announced until May under a specific heading. If it was
> set in January, I was never knowingly party to that info.
Well, it should not have surprised anyo
On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 18:26, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Just so that everyone is aware, we are going to push the freeze date
> >>> for 7.5 to July 1st.
> >>>
> >>> Although we fe
Or even KDE as an example where they have both a document on the website
for release schedule and another one that is a list of features that are
desired for the next release, have been worked on, and have been
completed.
http://developer.kde.org/development-versions/
> Having a good "hard copy"
Having a good "hard copy" (not having to search mailing list archives)
of release dates would be really nice, not just for developers, but
users too. Even if they are subject to change without notice.
I think Mozilla has a great concept with there Milestone Schedule, the
gray table at: http://www
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Official Freeze Date for 7.5: July 1st, 2004
|
>--|
Marc G. Fou
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Just so that everyone is aware, we are going to push the freeze date
for 7.5 to July 1st.
Although we feel that there are enough improvements and features
already in place for 7.5, Tom's felt that if we gav
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Just so that everyone is aware, we are going to push the freeze date for
7.5 to July 1st.
Although we feel that there are enough improvements and features already
in place for 7.5, Tom's felt that if we gave it that extra month, w
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Just so that everyone is aware, we are going to push the freeze date
for 7.5 to July 1st.
Although we feel that there are enough improvements and features
already in place for 7.5, Tom's felt that if we gave it that extra
month, we could also have PITR in place for 7.5 .
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Official Freeze Date for 7.5: July 1st, 2004
|
>--|
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a patch for delayed planning of unnamed statements when using the
> extended query protocol that's in need of review:
Right, I have it on my to-do list.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
If anyone is working on other features that they feel can be polished
off before the July 1st deadline, we would be most happy to incorporate
those as well, but do recommend submitting patches for review *sooner*,
rather then later, so that any recommended corrections can
On Mon, 2004-05-31 at 19:09, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Although we feel that there are enough improvements and features already
> in place for 7.5, Tom's felt that if we gave it that extra month, we could
> also have PITR in place for 7.5 ...
>
You have my full support and commitment for 1 July
26 matches
Mail list logo
