On Wednesday 28 January 2009 20:12:40 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > The revisionism was that of "remarkable failure". That was our shortest
> > release cycle in the modern era. And it didn't have the advantage of the
> > commitfest process.
> > But I think what is important here is to recognize why it didn't work.
> > Once again we ended up with large, complex features (HOT, tsearch) that
> > people didn't want to wait 14 months to see if they missed the 8.3
> > release. And yes, most of these same arguements were raised then... "full
> > text search is killer feature", "whole applications are waiting for
> > in-core full text search", "hot will give allow existing customers to use
> > postgres on a whole new level", "not fair to push back patches so long
> > when developers followed the rules", "sponsors wont want to pay for
> > features they wont see for years", "developers dont want to wait so long
> > to see features committed", and on and on...
> I think the big reminder for me from above is that we will always have
> big stuff that doesn't make a certain major release, and trying to
> circumvent our existing process is usually a mistake.
Our usual process *is* to try and circumvent our usual process. And I believe
it will continue to be that way until we lower the incentive to lobby for
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-01-29 03:35:22|
|Subject: Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable|
|Previous:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2009-01-29 03:18:12|
|Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery infra|