On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 12:08 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:48 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > We are not going to improve unless we face our faults.
> > True. Who or what is at fault, in your opinion?
> Well, we knew there was an issue but we didn't finalize our conclusions
> and address it as best we could before beta; instead it languished and
> was only addressed when we had our back up against the wall for beta2.
> Obviously this is not the best aproach. Ideally someone would have
> taken ownership of the issue, summarized the email conclusions, gotten a
> patch together, and submitted it for application. I know patches were
> posted but no one got group consensus on its usefulness until recently.
My experience is that consensus/votes will be overruled by final
committer, if they disagree, and so only a committer has the real
authority to take the role you suggest.
"The obligation to carry forward an assigned task to a successful
conclusion. With responsibility goes authority to direct and take the
necessary action to ensure success"
>From my side, Fujii-san's patch was adequate and backpatchable, though
needed docs changes; I proposed it should be committed and said so
clearly on open items wiki. My own suggestion was also an option, but it
was also clearly not backpatchable and seemed unlikely to be acceptable
at any time, let alone during beta. I am surprised at the final outcome,
but at least there is one, which is good.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2009-05-27 17:14:17|
|Subject: Re: New trigger option of pg_standby|
|Previous:||From: decibel||Date: 2009-05-27 16:31:38|
|Subject: Re: Allow vacuumdb to only analyze|