On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:38:23PM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
> Maybe I'm too used to working in engineering groups. I am trying to get
> input for a project. Trying to iron out what the feature set should be and
> the objectives that should be attained. BEFORE I start coding.
Well yes, the problem is that what's been suggested so far doesn't
provide much to give feedback on. It needs to be much more worked out.
> Just saying "submit a patch" is the antithesis to good engineering, it
> works for hacking, but if I am going to develop a feature, I wish to do it
> right and have it appeal to the broadest possible audience, collect as
> much input about the needs of users, etc.
That works, but only as long as it's something a lot of people care
about. This isn't, so until you (or somebody) comes up with a fairly
complete proposal as to how it should interact with the rest of the
system, it's hard to get/give feedback. Sorry, that's the way it works
> Maybe it is that the whiteboard engineering discussion process doesn't
> translate well to this medium.
Yep. the turnaround time is so high and the amount of communication so
low that you pretty much have to submit huge chunks at a time to get
any meaningful work done. The quick turnaround you get on a whiteboard
simply doesn't exist.
Don't take it personally. One effect of this system is the "first-mover
advantage". The first person to implement gets the biggest say in the
Have a ncie day,
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-02-27 22:55:31|
|Subject: Re: Scrollable cursors and Sort performance|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-02-27 22:44:20|
|Subject: Re: Scanning for insert |