From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New News Entry |
Date: | 2004-06-19 19:01:20 |
Message-ID: | 200406191201.20722.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
Tom,
> > Personally I think it's reasonable to have some guidelines, not
> > hard rules. In this case maybe we could suggest a time constraint:
> > "major release" announcements are ok if they're at least a year apart.
> > (Or six months, or whatever we feel is appropriate.)
Absolutely. The reason why I brought it up is that it's apparent that not
everyone on this list, even, agrees what the guidelines ought to be. We need
a consensus.
> But, I do agree about the time constraints ... maybe throw in a 'past
> track record' also?
Well, that's where we make exceptions, sometimes. For example, if OpenACS
sent us an announcement that wasn't a major release, we might put it up
anyway -- becuase they're very friendly to postgres, they're OSS, and they
have yet to post an announcement of any kind. Bricolage, on the other hand,
we'd stick to the "rules"; David sends me an announcement every patch
release.
for instance, we release 7.5.0, and it will generally
> be ~1 month before 7.5.1 comes out, but it may be 3 before 7.5.2 does ...
Oh, for the PostgreSQL project we post whatever we want. It *is* the
postgresql.org web site, after all.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin M. Roy | 2004-06-19 19:48:37 | Websites you like |
Previous Message | World Wide Web Owner | 2004-06-19 17:39:30 | New Event |