From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>, gabrielle <gorthx(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Wong <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Explicit psqlrc |
Date: | 2010-08-10 06:47:40 |
Message-ID: | 201008100647.o7A6lew29659@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > We should be giving authors as much leeway as possible, or they
> > may not come back.
>
> One phenomenon I've noticed is that sometimes a patch is submitted
> because an end user has solved their own problem for themselves, but
> wishes to share the solution with the community. They're not always
> motivated to go to the lengths required to polish it up to the
> standard required for inclusion in core. In such cases, unless
> someone with the time to do so finds it interesting enough to pick
> up, it is just going to drop. I hope such authors feel comfortable
> submitting their next effort, as it might be something which
> interests a larger audience than the previous effort. We should do
> what we can to ensure that they understand the dynamics of that.
This brings up the larger issue of whether incomplete/unapplied patches
are recorded on the TODO list or just ignored. We never really came up
with a plan for that.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-08-10 06:49:19 | Re: MERGE Specification |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-08-10 06:29:35 | Re: TODO 9.0 done items removed |