On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:51 +0000, Dave Page wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +0000, Dave Page wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.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 are not subject to the whims of company sponsorship. We are not a > > company with shareholders... Where have I heard that before? > > Not basing our release schedule on our commitments to shareholders is > an entirely different thing to treating sponsors of major features > like crap by arbitrarily bouncing the patches they've paid to have > properly developed within the community process with no good reason.
Certainly but I haven't seen a suggestion to that. Updateable views has as I have seen in threads, issues that can not be fixed in the appropriately time line. If they can be fixed for 8.5 great. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
