Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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 that the beta freeze date is inherently fuzzy, and only gets
solid as we get close to it. It would not have helped any for us
to announce "June 1 is the freeze date" in January; back then it was
just too hard to tell what might get done by June 1. By March it was
possible for me to say "I'm thinking about June" but it was still not
exactly a hard target. We tried to set a hard target around the
beginning of May ... well, it turned out to be the wrong hard target,
so maybe that was still too far away.
The other point is that core could be doing a better job of
communicating our ideas about schedule. On this I agree.
As long as you realize that the process is inherently fuzzy...
but we could certainly have been noisier in March about saying
that we were thinking of a June-ish freeze, and so forth.
regards, tom lane