Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 8.4 release planning

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning
Date: 2009-01-29 01:12:40
Message-ID: 200901290112.n0T1Ce103551@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-01-29 01:36:04
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning
Previous:From: KaiGai KoheiDate: 2009-01-29 00:39:50
Subject: Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group