On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> ... It is even more unreasonable to commit to >> providing a timely patch (twice) and then fail to do so. We are >> trying to finalize a release here, and you've made it clear you think >> this code needs revision before then. I respect your opinion, but not >> your right to make the project release timetable dependent on your own >> schedule, and not your right to shut other people out of working on >> the issues you've raised. > > Since nobody has put forward a proposed beta3 release date, I don't feel > that I'm holding anything up. In the meantime, I have many > responsibilities and am facing Red Hat internal deadlines.
See here, last paragraph: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-06/msg01093.php On a related note, this list is getting pretty darn short: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items ...partly because, in my desire to get another beta out, I have been devoting a lot of time to clearing it out. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
