On 2/24/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The argument for not including it was valid, it didn't adhere on several
levels including code style and grammatical changes.
IIRC, the only exception to code style was cleaning up some mixed
The point is, if the author would have done the project in public, the
problem wouldn't have happen.
It was public, very few offered suggestions.
I would say that is the author's fault. There are plenty of extremely
vibrant and lively developed projects on pgfoundry.
He already did over a year and half research on the subject, wrote the
code for it, published a paper on it, and offered it to the community.
Why would he choose to spend more time getting beaten up for
something that's already behind him?
Yes *some* of the community didn't understand it but there were others
in the community who made a specific effort to explain why it was good,
including Josh Berkus.
Yes, there were a few.
Someone who wants to provide a feature to the community can't expect the
community just to open their arms without explanation and full
discussion of a feature.
Perhaps you don't recall.. but his design and research was far more
than almost all other PostgreSQL features. The only one longer was
perhaps the HOT design.
You don't honestly expect a mature open source project to just accept
any code do you?
Obviously not. That's just a stupid question to ask.
For the record, I like the idea of full disjunctions but they must past
quality muster to be included in the community.
Again, he offered to fix anything anyone had issues with... but people
were too busy whining about the feature itself than to provide sound
advice for moving forward.
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings