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

Re: Companies Contributing to Open Source

From: Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Lukas Kahwe Smith" <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Companies Contributing to Open Source
Date: 2006-12-22 21:41:35
Message-ID: 87odpvd2wg.fsf@stark.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:

> In a humble, non-confrontational tone: Why/How does a patch imply a fait
> accompli, or show any disrespect?

Well depending on the circumstances it could show the poster isn't interested
in the judgement of the existing code authors. It can be hard to tell someone
that their last 6 months of work was all in a direction that other developers
would rather Postgres not head.

However I think people are over-generalising if they think this is always
true. 

Patches are often submitted by people who invite comment and are open to new
ideas and reworking their approach. Whether the submission is as a fait
accompli or as the beginning of a dialogue (imho a more productive dialogue
than the usual hand-waving on -hackers) is determined more by the attitude of
the presenter and willingness to take criticisms and make changes than it is
by the mere fact that they've written code without prior approval.

The flip side of all of this is that "the community" doesn't always engage
when people do ask for feedback. I asked for comments on how best to proceed
getting info down to the Sort node from a higher Limit node to implement the
limit-sort optimization and didn't get any guidance. As a result I'm kind of
stuck. I can proceed without feedback but I fear I would be, in fact,
presenting the result as a fait accompli which would end up getting rejected
if others were less comfortable with breaking the planner and executor
abstractions (or if I choose not to do so and they decide the necessary
abstractions are needless complexity).

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-12-22 22:34:15
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2006-12-22 21:33:43
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint

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