Re: Patch queue concern

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch queue concern
Date: 2007-03-29 17:26:31
Message-ID: 200703291726.l2THQVk25223@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> 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 <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-03-29 17:30:54 Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions
Previous Message Pavan Deolasee 2007-03-29 17:22:55 CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY and HOT