Robert Treat wrote:
On Wednesday 28 January 2009 20:12:40 Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Treat wrote:
The revisionism was that of "remarkable failure". That was our shortest
release cycle in the modern era. And it didn't have the advantage of the
commitfest process.
But I think what is important here is to recognize why it didn't work.
Once again we ended up with large, complex features (HOT, tsearch) that
people didn't want to wait 14 months to see if they missed the 8.3
release. And yes, most of these same arguements were raised then... "full
text search is killer feature", "whole applications are waiting for
in-core full text search", "hot will give allow existing customers to use
postgres on a whole new level", "not fair to push back patches so long
when developers followed the rules", "sponsors wont want to pay for
features they wont see for years", "developers dont want to wait so long
to see features committed", and on and on...
I think the big reminder for me from above is that we will always have
big stuff that doesn't make a certain major release, and trying to
circumvent our existing process is usually a mistake.
Our usual process *is* to try and circumvent our usual process. And I believe
it will continue to be that way until we lower the incentive to lobby for
circumvention.
Anybody lobbying to get the process circumvented gets their feature
reverted? :-)
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
