[HACKERS] Re: Release in 2 weeks ...

2001-02-28 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> > primarily because something in the jade RTF tickles a bug in the page > > formatting with Applix. (This round, I'll resort even to M$Word to avoid > > that time sink, since I just don't have the time.) > Is that the same MS Word that generates Postscript files as a big bitmap? > I suppose by t

[HACKERS] Re: Release in 2 weeks ...

2001-02-28 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Thomas Lockhart writes: > The "official" version of the story is that it takes ~10-20 hours for me > to work through the docs to format them for hardcopy with ApplixWare, Okay, I just kept hearing the "give Thomas 2 weeks for the docs" theme... > primarily because something in the jade RTF tick

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Release in 2 weeks ...

2001-02-27 Thread The Hermit Hacker
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tom Lane wrote: > > Scrappy has proposed that we start that period now. Were the concerns > > about WAL etc enough to hold off on that, or are we counting down from > > now? > > I'm pretty concerned about WAL, but have no good reason not to start > the release countdown. Fig

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Release in 2 weeks ...

2001-02-27 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm interested to know what exactly takes two weeks with the docs and what >> could be done to speed it up. > The "official" version of the story is that it takes ~10-20 hours for me > to work through the docs to format them for hardcopy with ApplixW

[HACKERS] Re: Release in 2 weeks ...

2001-02-27 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> > Are there any major outstandings that ppl have on their plates, > > that should prevent a release? I'd like to put out an RC1 by Friday this > > week, with a full release schedualed for March 15th ... this would give > > Thomas his two weeks for the docs freeze ... > I'm interested to k