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
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
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 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: