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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073