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

Re: knngist patch support

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
Cc: tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, "Ragi Y(dot) Burhum" <rburhum(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: knngist patch support
Date: 2010-02-11 13:01:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> wrote:
> Robert, please accept my public apology, if you feel I offense you. There
> are
> nothing against you. Your contribution is very important and I really don't
> understand why on the Earth you're not paid ! I remember discussion to paid
> you from our foundation.  That's shame. Does nybody ever got support for
> development from our foundation ?

No, I don't feel like you offended me.  It's more that, from my point
of view, it seems like all the things you're complaining about are
things that you more or less have control over, or at least could have
foreseen.  I have only been involved in this project for a year and a
half, so the CommitFest process is the only process that I know or
understand.  On the whole, I've found it to be a pretty good process.
I get my patches in; I help other people get their patches in (and
hopefully improve them along the way).  It's particularly appealing
when you're a non-committer, as it gives you a formal structure to
make sure your work gets looked at.

It seems that you're sort of frustrated with the system and the need
to go through a process before committing a patch; and that you feel
that the rules are unclear.  I don't think it's a bad thing to go
through a process before committing a patch, especially a large patch
like knngist, but of course that's just my opinion.  I agree that the
fact that the rules are unclear is a problem, though I'm not sure what
to do about it.  I am not sure they are so unclear as you are making
them out to be, but again, I'm biased by being a relative newcomer, as
well as someone who has been in the middle of many of the process

> Robert, human resources are the main problem and, first of all,
> our system should work for developers ! If we will not understand each other
> and follow only some unclear rules, we'll lost current developers and will
> not attract new. We, probably, in our particulary case, will follow our
> original suggestion -just contrib module, but I concern about future. Now I
> have to think not just about algorithms and implementation, but about
> reviewer and current regulation.

IMHO, our system has to work for both developers and users, and it has
to work for both committers and non-committers.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-02-11 13:04:46
Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-02-11 12:53:28
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove old-style VACUUM FULL (which was known for a little while

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