Tom Lane wrote:
I tend to agree --- I don't see much value in trying to institute a formalized process.
One more problem with the formalized process of claiming features in advance may stop what I suspect is a significant source of contributions -- people who add features/patches for internal work in their company and only after the fact find that they are something they'd contribute back. The small contribution I made (to help admins know when FSM settings were too low by monitoring log files instead of manual checks) was done because we wanted it internally. Only after it proved useful to us, it was mentioned to the lists. Thanks in part to the BSD nature of postgresql, I suspect there are many internal-and-not-yet-released useful patches lurking around in industry. If I'm right, I'd wonder what the advocacy guys could do to get corporations to volunteer to contribute changes back that they've found useful internally.
We have not had that many cases where lack of communication was a problem.
One could say too much communication was the problem this time. I get the impression people implied they'd do something on a TODO and didn't. Arguably the project had been better off if noone had claimed the TODO, so if another company/team/whatever needed the feature badly, they could have worked on it themselves rather than waiting in hope of the feature. Of course they could have done this anyway - but if they see it on an implied roadmap document for the next release they're more likely to wait. Ron  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-02/msg00171.php ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend