Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I disagree with that approach.  Larger more complex patches required
much more work and effort than small, simple ones.  Not only do I
think it's unfair to the authors who spent considerably more time on
their work, but I think it also sets a bad precedent for future work;
saying, in short, that if you want to make large strides to improve
PostgreSQL, and you followed the community development process, you're
still potentially last in line for review.
Yep.  We lose a lot of credibility if we did that.

So, we lose no credibility if we sit in feature freeze indefinitely, with no direction, while we wait for reviewers to finish reviewing?

*cough* that is hardly what is happening. Just today we had two people step up and commit to help reviewing. One of them is a committer (AndrewD).

I believe under no uncertain terms, that if we continual proactive communication over the next several weeks that we will see a marked and steady improvement to our existing status.

Let's keep this on earth shall we.


Joshua D. Drake


      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project:
PostgreSQL Replication:

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to