Re: 8.2 features status

andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net wrote:
> > andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net writes:
> >>> I don't object to someone informally polling people who have claimed a
> >>> TODO item and not produced any visible progress for awhile. But I
> >>> think
> >>> anything like "thou shalt report in once a week" will merely drive
> >>> people away from publicly claiming items, if not drive them away from
> >>> doing anything at all.
> >
> >> The former is much more what I had in mind than the latter. Let's do
> >> that.
> >
> > Like I said, no objection here. But who exactly is "we" --- ie, who's
> > going to do the legwork? We surely don't want multiple people pestering
> > the same developer ...
> >
>
> Perl has its pumpking ... maybe we need a designated "holder of the
> trunk". I see that as a Core function.

I can assure you that individual developers were contacted about
completing their items for 8.2, to the extent that some developers got
upset at me because of my insistence. If they were hired by PostgreSQL
companies and I had a relationship with their manager, their managers
were informed as well.

Jonah, who said the community wasn't clear it wanted his items
completed, was part of that group. I see no need to mention the other
people I contacted. Many of them completed their items, and Jonah
finished some of his items.

The fact is, the existing system worked as it should, though it is often
invisible. We didn't get all the features we wanted, but that isn't
because the system isn't working.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +