| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-core <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Restore-reliability mode |
| Date: | 2015-06-03 14:18:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20150603141837.GD18006@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-06-03 09:50:49 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> Second, I would define the subject matter as "bug fixes, testing and
> review", not "restructuring, testing and review." Different code
> structures are clearest to different hackers. Restructuring, on
> average, adds bugs even more quickly than feature development adds
> them.
I can't agree with this. While I agree with not doing large
restructuring for 9.5, I think we can't affort not to refactor for
clarity, even if that introduces bugs. Noticeable parts of our code have
to frequently be modified for new features and are badly structured at
the same time. While restructuring will may temporarily increase the
number of bugs in the short term, it'll decrease the number of bugs long
term while increasing the number of potential contributors and new
features. That's obviously not to say we should just refactor for the
sake of it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2015-06-03 14:51:56 | Re: Restore-reliability mode |
| Previous Message | Geoff Winkless | 2015-06-03 14:07:53 | Re: Restore-reliability mode |