On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> writes: >> 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. > > Nobody has suggested bouncing HS; there is only a debate about how soon > it's likely to be appliable. Any company who imagined they had a > guarantee about it getting into 8.4 is simply misguided.
I was complaining about it being bounced to 8.5 without proper review as I've said elsewhere in one of these threads. > As for SEPostgres, I think that bouncing it entirely is quite a possible > outcome, but that's because there does not appear to be adequate > interest to justify taking on a major maintenance burden (and anyone who > thinks it won't be a major burden is equally misguided --- at the very > least it will be an endless source of bug reports that we'll be forced > to classify as security issues, with all the hoop-leaping that that > entails). We are not bound to accept features that are only wanted by a > small number of users, no matter how badly those users want them. That wouldn't be 'arbitrarily bounced' though, it would be with good reason. And I have no problem with that. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
