| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | 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 14:10:50 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10901270610i3c543f69j3c7b7756e88cccf7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 must at least have the solid belief (of a committer that that has
done a proper review) that a patch cannot be polished in an
appropriate timeframe, or another justifiable reason for rejecting
rather than vague handwaving, guesswork and estimates based on email
traffic.
If we do not, we will rapidly find that no company wants to sponsor
features for PostgreSQL in the future for fear that their money will
be wasted even if they jump through all the right hoops.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2009-01-27 14:20:41 | Re: 8.4 release planning |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-27 14:09:51 | Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery |