On Wednesday 28 January 2009 20:12:40 Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robert Treat wrote: > > The revisionism was that of "remarkable failure". That was our shortest > > release cycle in the modern era. And it didn't have the advantage of the > > commitfest process. > > > > But I think what is important here is to recognize why it didn't work. > > Once again we ended up with large, complex features (HOT, tsearch) that > > people didn't want to wait 14 months to see if they missed the 8.3 > > release. And yes, most of these same arguements were raised then... "full > > text search is killer feature", "whole applications are waiting for > > in-core full text search", "hot will give allow existing customers to use > > postgres on a whole new level", "not fair to push back patches so long > > when developers followed the rules", "sponsors wont want to pay for > > features they wont see for years", "developers dont want to wait so long > > to see features committed", and on and on... > > I think the big reminder for me from above is that we will always have > big stuff that doesn't make a certain major release, and trying to > circumvent our existing process is usually a mistake. >
Our usual process *is* to try and circumvent our usual process. And I believe it will continue to be that way until we lower the incentive to lobby for circumvention. -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers