On Mon, 13 May 2002, mlw wrote:
> Iavor Raytchev wrote:
> > > If and when patches for pgaccess appear in significant numbers and for
> > > some reason, which I cannot imagine, this procedure doesn't end up being
> > > practical, we can consider the alternatives. But before you spend a lot
> > > of time building a new infrastructure, let's see some code.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
> > We are working on it, because we have some code.
> > Don't you believe us, or do you think we have a lot of free time to waste?
> > We - Chris, Bartus, Boyan and myself, have enough patches we want to merge.
> > And we do not feel like asking for permisson to do it. We sent them to Teo
> > and we were asked by Teo to meet and see what we can do with our patches.
> > And we were nice enough to tell the world about this.
> > I do not feel neither like 'asking for permisson', nor like 'proving'
> > anything. If somebody wants to help - is welcome.
> I find that this group is frustrating to work with. They seem very intolerant
> of the plurality.
> I did a configuration patch several months ago. I liked it, as did some others.
> It did not affect any existing behavior, but added the ability to store
> configuration information in a different location than the data, and share
> files between multiple PostgreSQL instances.
> Rather than evaluate the patch, and say it needs these changes, or simply
> applying it, you know, working with the contributor's to make a better project,
> they ranted and raved how they didn't like it, how they wanted something
> better, etc. No good technical reasons were given, mind you, just "I don't like
> So, I did the work, for what? Nothing. It is pointless for me to make the
> changes for each release. Fortunately it wasn't too much work. So, my
> experience tells me that unless the work you do is something they want, you are
> wasting your time. If you try to get some feedback from them about an approach
> you wish to take, so you don't waste your time, they flame you and tell you to
> put up or shut up.
> If you intend to undertake a major work on PostgreSQL, it had better be for
> something other than contribution back to the group, otherwise, there is a good
> possibility that you are going to waste your time.
> I do not get paid to work on PostgreSQL, the time I spend on it is either my
> own or for a project I am working on. I am finding it very unsatisfying.
This is the unfortunate impression I'm getting from some people on the
HACKERS list, which is why discussion has moved temporarily to
INTERFACES until pgaccess.org has its own mailing list. Plus that and
the fact that pgaccess is an interface to postgresql. Also, INTERFACES
seems to be a lot more newbie questions but these people are trying to
learn so it is a more welcoming environment.
What is strange is that you weren't even talking about a fork, which
seems to be the central philosophical issue with pgaccess at the moment.
All I can say to reassure people is that it is still _PG_access, not
fingerprint 5EB8 2035 F07B 3B09 5A31 7C09 196F 4126 C005 1F6A
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Oleg Bartunov||Date: 2002-05-13 16:08:36|
|Subject: Re: strange explain |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-05-13 15:24:59|
|Subject: Re: strange explain |
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: C. Maj||Date: 2002-05-13 16:21:47|
|Subject: Re: PgAccess directory structure|
|Previous:||From: mlw||Date: 2002-05-13 14:56:29|
|Subject: Re: pgaccess - the discussion is over|