On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Yeah, a lot of the ideas in this thread, while reasonable, are of the
> sort "We need to be better about ..." which sounds a lot like "I need to
> be better about exercising".  A system based purely on distributed
> willpower isn't going to last very long, as we are finding out.

I have often thought that contributors have a tendency to be
unrealistic about how effective procedural changes can be in
alleviating our problems. We have always relied heavily on individual
acts of heroism. I expect no great changes there.

For example, you can't really expect a CF app SQL query to give you
anything greater than an extremely noisy idea of how much "review
goodwill" somebody has banked. My oldest pending patch in the CF app
is a boring refactoring patch that no one asked me to write. Should
that be held against me?

> My feeble attempts at alleviating this problem a bit are adding more
> testing and removing outdated functionality, but both of those are also
> incredibly abuse-prone activities.

I think that we've learned some lessons from the problems with 9.3. I
don't think that one of those lessons was "take more time to release".
There is reason to doubt that that would have changed matters one bit
with 9.3. It might be a good idea to formally state what those lessons

Peter Geoghegan

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to