On 05/13/2016 09:40 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 09:35:40AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
On 05/13/2016 09:28 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 09:12:23AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
There was no disrespect intended. I was trying to push forth an idea that
multi-company team collaboration is better for the community than single
company team collaboration. I will stand by that assertion.

Uh, we are already doing that.  EDB and NTT are working on FDWs and
sharding, PostgresPro and someone else is working on a transaction
manager, and EDB and 2nd Quadrant worked on parallelism.

What is the problem you are trying to solve?

Hey, if I am wrong that's awesome. The impression I have is the general
workflow is this:

        * Company(1) discusses feature with community
        * Company(1) works on patch/feature for a period of time
        * Company(1) delivers patch to community
        * Standard operation continues (patch review, discussion, etc..)

Yes, there are some cases of that.  I assume it is due to efficiency and
the belief that others aren't interested in helping.  In a way is a
company working on something alone different from a person working on a
patch alone?

No but I also think we should discourage that when reasonable as well. Obviously some patches just don't need more than one person but when we are talking about anything that is taking X time (month or more?) then
we should actively encourage collaboration.

That is all I am really talking about here. A more assertive collaboration for the betterment of the community. When I think about the size of the brain trust we have as a whole, I imagine the great things we could do even better. It isn't magical or overnight but a long term goal.



Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.

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

Reply via email to