| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules) |
| Date: | 2009-01-27 17:20:52 |
| Message-ID: | 17945.1233076852@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> Not basing our release schedule on our commitments to shareholders is
> an entirely different thing to treating sponsors of major features
> like crap by arbitrarily bouncing the patches they've paid to have
> properly developed within the community process with no good reason.
Nobody has suggested bouncing HS; there is only a debate about how soon
it's likely to be appliable. Any company who imagined they had a
guarantee about it getting into 8.4 is simply misguided.
As for SEPostgres, I think that bouncing it entirely is quite a possible
outcome, but that's because there does not appear to be adequate
interest to justify taking on a major maintenance burden (and anyone who
thinks it won't be a major burden is equally misguided --- at the very
least it will be an endless source of bug reports that we'll be forced
to classify as security issues, with all the hoop-leaping that that
entails). We are not bound to accept features that are only wanted by a
small number of users, no matter how badly those users want them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2009-01-27 17:30:19 | Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules) |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-27 17:18:46 | Re: 8.4 release planning |