On 4/11/24 20:26, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 4/11/24 03:52, David Steele wrote:
On 4/11/24 10:23, Tom Kincaid wrote:
The extensive Beta process we have can be used to build confidence we
need in a feature that has extensive review and currently has no known
issues or outstanding objections.
I did have objections, here [1] and here [2]. I think the complexity,
space requirements, and likely performance issues involved in restores
are going to be a real problem for users. Some of these can be addressed
in future releases, but I can't escape the feeling that what we are
releasing here is half-baked.
I do not think it's half-baked. I certainly agree there are limitations,
and there's all kinds of bells and whistles we could add, but I think
the fundamental infrastructure is corrent and a meaningful step forward.
Would I wish it to handle .tar for example? Sure I would. But I think
it's something we can add in the future - if we require all of this to
happen in a single release, it'll never happen.
I'm not sure that I really buy this argument, anyway. It is not uncommon
for significant features to spend years in development before they are
committed. This feature went from first introduction to commit in just
over six months. Obviously Robert had been working on it for a while,
but for a feature this large six months is a sprint.
Regards,
-David
