On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:10:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, here's a question. Given the recent discussion re full 
> > disjunction, I'd like to know what sort of commitment we are going to 
> > give people who work on proposed projects.
> Um, if you mean are we going to promise to accept a patch in advance of
> seeing it, the answer is certainly not.  Still, a SoC author can improve
> his chances in all the usual ways, primarily by getting discussion and
> rough consensus on a spec and then on an implementation sketch before
> he starts to do much code.  Lots of showstopper problems can be caught
> at that stage.
> I think the main problems with the FD patch were (1) much of the
> community was never actually sold on it being a useful feature,
> and (2) the implementation was not something anyone wanted to accept
> into core, because of its klugy API.  Both of these points could have
> been dealt with before a line of code had been written, but they were
> not :-(

Yes, but the list being discussed is SoC projects that the community
would like to see done, which means most people would assume that #1
isn't an issue.

We need to make sure that every project on the list of SoC ideas is
supported by the community.
Jim Nasby                                            [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to