Re: 8.2 features status

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:03:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > >Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented
> > >release ... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd
> > >better get ready to be disappointed by every future release.
> >
> > It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features
> > that we haven't seen patches for, e.g. MERGE and/or some form of
> > UPSERT, and recursive queries. I am not pointing fingers, but I do
> > think we need some way in which the community can ensure that
> > certain goals are met, or at least try to help if things fall in a
> > ditch, rather than just relying on hackers scratching whatever
> > itch they happen to get in splendid isolation and then trying to
> > merge the results.
>
> What we do is when people claim items, we monitor them to be sure
> they get them done for the current release, or at least give it
> their best try. There is not much more we can do.

While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker',
I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as
claiming items goes.

I'm picturing something like this:

1. Each person taking an item agrees to write at least one email each
week to -hackers detailing progress or lack of same on the item.

2. Should someone wish to relinquish a claim on a feature, there needs
to be some standard way to do a hand-off of whatever they've
done/found and announce that the feature is now available to others to
claim.

3. Should the person claiming the feature not communicate to -hackers
for some period--I'm thinking 3 weeks is about right--the item goes
back in the unclaimed pool with a message to -hackers saying that
that's what's happened.

What say?

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!