On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:10:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well, here's a question. Given the recent discussion re full > > disjunction, I'd like to know what sort of commitment we are going to > > give people who work on proposed projects. > > Um, if you mean are we going to promise to accept a patch in advance of > seeing it, the answer is certainly not. Still, a SoC author can improve > his chances in all the usual ways, primarily by getting discussion and > rough consensus on a spec and then on an implementation sketch before > he starts to do much code. Lots of showstopper problems can be caught > at that stage. > > I think the main problems with the FD patch were (1) much of the > community was never actually sold on it being a useful feature, > and (2) the implementation was not something anyone wanted to accept > into core, because of its klugy API. Both of these points could have > been dealt with before a line of code had been written, but they were > not :-(
Yes, but the list being discussed is SoC projects that the community would like to see done, which means most people would assume that #1 isn't an issue. We need to make sure that every project on the list of SoC ideas is supported by the community. -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
