On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:19:19 -0500 Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:44:30AM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo > wrote: > > That's why I wrote "without making it too formal" and "bland > > commitment to the release schedule...". > The problem with doing it that way is that, when the release fails > to meet the original target deadline, any coverage of a new release > will inevitably include notes remarks about how the release was > "six months late" or whatever. The computer press is driven mostly So? Comparably you've more commitment with your user base than with the press. I think the user base will appreciate to have a rough idea without resorting into digging into 3 months old announcement or what else. > by commercial firms, who have to have software schedules because > that's how they pay their bills. If you're so concerned about journalists (and concurrences) what do you think will stop them about writing pg doesn't have a clear schedule bla bla bla...? A lot of people are betting on the advancement and feature additions of the unnamed concurrence for example... and claiming there won't be any reason to use pg shortly... since the unnamed concurrence is catching up. Is it just vaporware... maybe... but still there are pros and cons of having a bland schedule for EOL and new releases. -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
