I have to say that as a 3rd party observer it is quite obvious to understand why the PostgreSQL software is so good - people are very passionate about the work they are doing. However, in this instance, as a by-stander, it seems that there is a lot of energy being spent on pointing fingers. At the end, the only people that loose are users like me who would love to have a feature like this since it would literally make one of the most common types of spatial queries, for lack of better wording, ridiculously fast. I sincerely apologize if I triggered any kind of trouble by asking a questions about this feature.
- Ragi On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/2/11 Oleg Bartunov <o...@sai.msu.su>: >> This is very disgraceful from my point of view and reflects real problem >> in scheduling of CF. The patch was submitted Nov 23 2009, discussed and >> reworked Nov 25. Long holidays in December-January, probably are reason why >> there were no any movement on reviewing the patch. People with > > So... I think the reason why there was no movement between November > 25th and January 15th is because no CommitFest started between > November 25th and January 15th. Had you submitted the patch on > November 14th, you would have gotten a lot more feedback in November; > I agree that we don't have a lot of formal documentation about the > CommitFest process, but I would think that much would be pretty clear, > but maybe not. The reason there was no movement after January 15th is > because (1) I couldn't get anyone to volunteer to review it, except > Mark Cave-Ayland who didn't actually do so (or anyway didn't post > anything publicly), and (2) we were still working on rbtree. > > Personally, I am a little irritated about the whole way this situation > has unfolded. I devoted a substantial amount of time over my > Christmas vacation to patch review, and many of those patches went on > to be committed. Some of the patches I reviewed were yours. I did > not get paid one dime for any of that work. I expressed candidly, > from the very beginning, that getting such a large patch done by the > end of this CommitFest would likely be difficult, especially given > that it had two precursor patches. In exchange for giving you my > honest opinions about your patches two weeks before the scheduled > start of the CommitFest, over my Christmas vacation, and for free, I > got a long stream of complaints from you and others about how the > process is unfair, and as nearly zero help making the prerequisite > patches committable as it is possible for anyone to achieve. It > regularly took 4-6 days for a new version of the patch to appear, and > as often as not questions in my reviews were ignored for days, if not > weeks. It took a LOT of iterations before my performance concerns > were addressed; and I believe that process could have been done MUCH > more quickly. > > Now, it is possible that as you are sitting there reading this email, > you are thinking to yourself "well, your feedback didn't actually make > that patch any better, so this whole thing is just pure > obstructionism." I don't believe that's the case, but obviously I'm > biased and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What I can tell > you for sure is that all of my reviewing was done with the best of > motivations and in a sincere attempt to do the right thing. > > You may be right that January 15th was a bad time to start a > CommitFest, although it's very unclear to me why that might be. At > least in the US, the holidays are over long before January 15th, but > we had a very small crop of reviewers this time around, and a number > of them failed to review the patches they picked up, or did only a > very cursory review. It might be mentioned that if you have concerns > about getting your own patches reviewed, you might want to think about > reviewing some patches by other people. Of the 60 patches currently > in the 2010-01 CommitFest, I'm listed as a reviewer on 12 of them. > Needless to say, if someone else had volunteered to do some or all of > the review work on some of those patches, I would have had more time > to work on other patches. > > ...Robert > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
