From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> |
Cc: | "'The Hermit Hacker'" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release |
Date: | 1999-12-10 08:18:55 |
Message-ID: | 19534.944813935@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> writes:
> I'm also confused. So far, I've been working on the premise that the
> next release would be 7.0 because of the probably major additions
> expected, and that I'm hitting the JDBC driver hard to get as much of
> the 2.0 spec complete as is possible.
That was what I was thinking also, until yesterday. I think that the
proposal on the table is simply to consolidate/debug what we've already
done and push it out the door. If you've still got substantial work
left to finish JDBC 2.0, then it'd be better left for the next release.
I know I have a lot of little loose ends dangling on stuff that's
already "done", and a long list of nitty little bugs to fix, so it
makes sense to me to spend some time in fix-bugs-and-make-a-release
mode before going back into long-haul-feature-development mode.
Now, if other people don't have that feeling, maybe the idea of
a near-term release isn't so hot after all.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Mount | 1999-12-10 08:30:52 | RE: [HACKERS] 6.6 release |
Previous Message | Peter Mount | 1999-12-10 08:12:57 | RE: [HACKERS] 6.6 release |