I'm also confused. So far, I've been working on the premise that the
next release would be 7.0 because of the probably major additions
expected, and that I'm hitting the JDBC driver hard to get as much of
the 2.0 spec complete as is possible.

I think, if the other changes are going to be that long, the version for
beta on Feb 1st should be 7.0, and have WAL (and others) for 8.0.

Peter

-- 
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support
Maidstone Borough Council
Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council.



-----Original Message-----
From: The Hermit Hacker [mailto:scrappy@hub.org]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 7:09 AM
To: Tom Lane
Cc: Bruce Momjian; PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release 

[snipped toms comments]

Wait, now I'm confused...so between 6.6 and 7, we're talking another
year
anyway? *raised eyebrow*  Just curious about your 'long slog' above :)

Here's a question...should we beta on Feb 1st but make it 7.0?  If we
are
going to be looking for a "long slog" for 7, why not "freeze" things on
Feb 1st as v7, and start working on v8 with WAL, long tuples, etc,
etc...

Like, what point do we call things a major release?  In a sense, MVCC
probably should have been considered a large enough overhaul to warrant
7.0, no?

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick:
Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary:
scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


************

Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:53:05 -0000
Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk>
RE: [HACKERS] 6.6 release 
Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk> writes:
> I'm also confused. So far, I've been working on the premise that the
> next release would be 7.0 because of the probably major additions
> expected, and that I'm hitting the JDBC driver hard to get as much of
> the 2.0 spec complete as is possible.

That was what I was thinking also, until yesterday.  I think that the
proposal on the table is simply to consolidate/debug what we've already
done and push it out the door.  If you've still got substantial work
left to finish JDBC 2.0, then it'd be better left for the next release.

I know I have a lot of little loose ends dangling on stuff that's
already "done", and a long list of nitty little bugs to fix, so it
makes sense to me to spend some time in fix-bugs-and-make-a-release
mode before going back into long-haul-feature-development mode.
Now, if other people don't have that feeling, maybe the idea of
a near-term release isn't so hot after all.

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:18:55 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release 
On 1999-12-10, Tom Lane mentioned:

> I know I have a lot of little loose ends dangling on stuff that's
> already "done", and a long list of nitty little bugs to fix, so it
> makes sense to me to spend some time in fix-bugs-and-make-a-release
> mode before going back into long-haul-feature-development mode.
> Now, if other people don't have that feeling, maybe the idea of
> a near-term release isn't so hot after all.

I do have that feeling. That's better than tying up the loose ends and
fixing the nitty little bugs half a year from now when you have no clue
where that list went ...

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden



Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:01:22 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release 