> Greg, you are on an utterly wrong track here. Try to look about a bit more
> broadly.

FWIW, I tend to agree with Greg.  This project has gotten to where it is
with a very loose structure, and I think that trying to impose more
structure carries a significant risk of breaking the cooperative
dynamics that have worked so well for us so far.  In short, I'm not sure
that we should try to fix something that isn't clearly broken.

I don't object to someone informally polling people who have claimed a
TODO item and not produced any visible progress for awhile.  But I think
anything like "thou shalt report in once a week" will merely drive
people away from publicly claiming items, if not drive them away from
doing anything at all.  We've already got far too much problem with
lack of visibility, in the sense that people pop up with patches after
not having told anyone they were working on a given problem (much less
posted a preliminary design for feedback, as I desperately wish people
would do before starting to code anything).  We should encourage people
to say "I'm working on X", and I fear that putting requirements on them
as soon as they say that will mostly serve to keep them from saying

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to