| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A deprecation policy |
| Date: | 2009-02-11 18:33:40 |
| Message-ID: | 12213.1234377220@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I have been thinking, with a semi-formal deprecation policy, we could
> make these decisions with more confidence. My proposed policy goes like
> this:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of hours, and I keep coming
back to the conclusion that if we actually enforced a policy like this
it would kill Postgres development dead. It already takes more than a
year, on average, for a proposal to go from idea to out-in-the-field.
This policy would add another two years onto that for anything that
involved user-visible changes, which is most things. All but the most
persistent developers are simply going to go away and not bother trying
to shepherd their ideas through such a process.
I can see the value of a more formal deprecation policy, but I think
it's gotta have a shorter time constant than this.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-11 18:39:10 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update autovacuum to use reloptions instead of a system catalog, |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-02-11 18:18:11 | Re: temporarily stop autovacuum |