Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> It favours people who are short-sighted and don't see what possible
> >> improvements their code has. No code in an ongoing project like this is
> >> ever
> >> "completed" anyways.
> > It favors those who do not wait until the last minute, but complete them
> > well before the freeze date.
> What is this "complete" you keep talking about? Should I stop working on the
> sort/limit patch even though Heikki pointed out a few things to clean up and
> the cost model isn't updated yet just so that you'll consider it "complete"
> and put it on the patch queue? If I don't stop working on it you think we
> should just ignore it even if it's in a usable state now? Even the cost model
> changes could be done pretty easily with some guidance from a review.
Complete means the author _thinks_ he is done, and has responded to all
community comments on the patch.
> >> It's also an artifact of the working model we have where patches are sent
> >> in
> >> big chunks and reviewed much later during a feature freeze. If we were
> >> committing directly into a CVS repository we would have wanted to commit
> >> these
> >> changes as soon as they were ready for committing, not wait until they're
> >> "completed". Then continue working and commit further changes. It's only
> > This would have CVS containing uncomplete features --- and before beta,
> > we would either have to beg the authors to complete them, or rip them
> > out, neither of which we want to do.
> You don't want to commit something if it's in an unusable state and would have
> to be ripped out without more work. I said "as soon as they're ready for
> committing" as opposed to "completed".
> You're asking people if they've stopped working on patches and you're
> surprised to find that there are a lot of patches people are still working on.
> That's silly, of course people are still working on them, many of these tasks
> are open ended and can be improved as long as we have time. just because
> they're still working on them doesn't necessarily mean what they have so far
> isn't worth committing as is yet.
We don't want open-ended a few days before feature feeze. We want them
to be as done, at some complete stopping point, and submitted.
> > OK, but we don't want something that is ready to be committed, we need
> > it complete.
> So how many more releases before you think Postgres is "complete"?
I am getting tired of your semantic games, here, Greg. I have no idea
what you are trying to accomplish, but I have better things to do.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?