Re: 8.2 features status

Christopher Browne wrote:
> Quoth jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com ("Joshua D. Drake"):
>> Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Bruce,
>>>
>>>> What happens now is that someone says they want to work on X, and the
>>>> community tells them that Y might be working on it, and Y gives us a
>>>> status.
>>>>
>>> What happens now is:
>>> A starts working on X.
>>> 3 months pass
>>> B comes to hackers, spends hours reading the archives, doesn't find
>>> X (because they know it by a different name), comes to -hackers and
>>> asks "Is anyone working on X?"
>>> B waits for 2 weeks without an answer and repeats the question.
>>> Hackers E, F and G reply "yes, someone is but I don't remember who,
>>> search the archives for keyword X"
>> I would bet, right about here we loose a whole lot of would be
>> contributors.
>>
>> Just the the questions I had about two todos this year was enough
>> basically give up on doing any work on them.
>
> So I'm to take it that if nobody had *ever* pestered you about those
> items, you would have been certain (or "significantly more likely") to
> get them done in time for 8.2?

I think you are misreading my comment. I said:

>> I would bet, right about here we loose a whole lot of would be
>> contributors.
>>
>> Just the the questions I had about two todos this year was enough
>> basically give up on doing any work on them.

Which was a positive reinforcement to:

>>> A starts working on X.
>>> 3 months pass
>>> B comes to hackers, spends hours reading the archives, doesn't find
>>> X (because they know it by a different name), comes to -hackers and
>>> asks "Is anyone working on X?"
>>> B waits for 2 weeks without an answer and repeats the question.
>>> Hackers E, F and G reply "yes, someone is but I don't remember who,
>>> search the archives for keyword X"

My point was, I was going to work on some todos before feature freeze. I
asked about two specific todos. One of them was badly worded and one of
them did not represent (except in the smallest of ways) what it actually
was.

The first one I bailed out of because it was entirely too much for me to
do in terms of expertise.

The second one turned into a huge debate about not only what the todo
was, but how it was to be implemented and it turned out the todo was all
about pg_dump. Here is that todo:

%Add pg_get_acldef(), pg_get_typedefault(), pg_get_attrdef(),
pg_get_tabledef(), pg_get_domaindef(), pg_get_functiondef()

I was under the impression that I would be writing some C or SQL
functions to create some useful tidbits.

It took a couple of days just to get enough information to find out I
was wrong. I was then going to think about possibly sponsoring the todo
instead as it was out of my realm.

I decided to forget about it after waiting for everyone to figure out
what they wanted.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/