Re: Official Freeze Date for 7.5: July 1st, 2004

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