| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Release cycle length |
| Date: | 2003-11-18 01:12:09 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0311180209340.639-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Marc G. Fournier writes:
> Just did a quick search on archives, and the original plan was for a
> release in mid-2003, which means the beta would have been *at least* a
> month before that, so beta starting around May:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-11/msg00975.php
That was a Bruce Momjian estimate mentioned in passing, not an affirmed
plan. Also, I think Bruce's estimates are notoriously off by years. ;-)
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-11-18 01:21:45 | Re: Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-11-18 01:08:41 | Re: Release cycle length |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-11-18 01:21:45 | Re: Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-11-18 01:08:41 | Re: Release cycle length |