| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules) |
| Date: | 2009-01-27 15:51:30 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10901270751k5a5c801fse52f067d4184487@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>> > Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
>> > prepare a release.
>>
>> That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
>> development work - that we will arbitrarily reject large patches that
>> have been worked on following the procedures that we require.
>
> We are not subject to the whims of company sponsorship. We are not a
> company with shareholders... Where have I heard that before?
Not basing our release schedule on our commitments to shareholders is
an entirely different thing to treating sponsors of major features
like crap by arbitrarily bouncing the patches they've paid to have
properly developed within the community process with no good reason.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-01-27 15:52:10 | Re: pg_upgrade project status |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-27 15:51:17 | Re: 8.4 release planning |