From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Commit fest queue |
Date: | 2008-04-10 14:56:04 |
Message-ID: | 1604.1207839364@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 10. April 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> Another is that the email list provides a
>> "push" mechanism for putting the proposed patch under the noses of a
>> bunch of people, a few of whom will hopefully take a sniff ;-).
>> A tracker is very much more of a "pull" scenario where someone has to
>> actively go looking for pending/proposed changes.
> In my mind the pull mechanism is exactly one of the major features I would
> expect from a proper tracking system, so I can "pull" and work on the issues
> that affect me at a time when it is convenient for me, instead of at the time
> when the "push" happens.
Of course. The point is we need both, since each way scratches a
different itch.
Also, I'm quite hesitant to abandon a working process --- our
email-based procedures have served the project pretty well over the past
ten-plus years, else we'd not be here having this discussion. So, at
least in the beginning, I want to layer any tracking process over what
we already do, not make a big change for unproven results.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-04-10 14:56:31 | Re: [HACKERS] [SQL] pl/PgSQL, variable names in NEW |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-04-10 14:53:28 | Re: MSVC build broken with perl 5.10 |