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

Re: damage control mode

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: damage control mode
Date: 2010-01-10 13:21:43
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus wrote:
> I'll also say: if we can't make time-based releases work, we're probably
> dead as a project.  MySQL and Ingres both tried feature-based releases,
> and look where they are now.

I think you're engaging in a bit of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' 
reasoning here.

In any case, I think it's a false dichotomy. We always seem to treat 
this as an all or nothing deal. But there is no reason that we must. We 
could easily decide that one or two features were critical for the 
release and everything else would have to make the time cut. For this 
release those features would obviously be HS and SR. Obviously we could 
could at some stage decide to cut our losses and run, as we did last 
release (eventually). But I think that the idea that we should never at 
least have a stated goal to have certain features in a given release is 
a bit silly.

If you think we could put out this coming release without having HS + 
SR, and not do significant damage to the project, I can only say I 
profoundly disagree.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stefan KaltenbrunnerDate: 2010-01-10 13:24:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] maintenance announcement for and
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-01-10 13:02:21
Subject: Re: damage control mode

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group