Peter,
> We have this issue every year and it's never ended up being a problem.
> It's the author's or publisher's fault if they can't write their
> articles ambiguous enough.
Well, the problem with that attitude is that it's pretty much a statement that
we don't want magazine coverage. Magazine editors will not keep covering us
if they can't target an issue towards an article 1-2 months *after* the
release date, as predicted 3 months in advance due to print lead times. I've
already had an article proposal rejected by one magazine due to not being
able to promise this. I suspect that the two magazines cited will not cover
us a second time.
And last I checked, it was still our goal to seek "equal airtime" with other
DBMSes in the press. Or have we given up competing?
I'm not saying that our release schedules should be determined by PR concerns.
PR/Marketing has always been our lowest priority. There's a difference
between "lowest priority" and "ignoring completely". If we are callous and
ignorant of the needs of the press when making releases, then we will get no
press coverage, which will then make it even harder for our users to get
their bosses to approve using PostgreSQL officially.
> We also have this issue every year and I still don't believe it.
> Curiously, there is always excellent press coverage of everything else
> between December 18th and January 3rd.
Not in the United States, which still dominates the tech press. Maybe it's
different in Germany. We've never done a release between those dates; in
fact, we held back 7.4 for that reason.
> We also have this issue every year, but the time from beta to release
> has always been about three months. With the buildfarm helping out,
> we're a couple of weeks early this time. Rejoice.
I got spoiled by 8.1, which released in an 8-week beta with no slippage.
Surely we can do that again?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco