Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0
Date: 2016-05-13 20:03:32
Message-ID: 57363314.5050904@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/13/2016 12:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hey, if I am wrong that's awesome. The impression I have is the general
>> workflow is this:

>> The difference being one of coopetition versions competition for the
>> betterment of the community. If there are companies that are doing that
>> already, that is awesome and I applaud it. I was just trying to further
>> drive that idea home.
>
> I think that's already happening. I'm happy to see more of it. In
> practical terms, though, it's harder to collaborate between companies
> because then you need two management teams to be on-board with it, and
> there can be other competing priorities.

Yep, that's true.

> If either company needs to
> pull staff of a project because of some competing priority (say,
> fixing a broken customer or addressing an urgent customer need), then
> the whole project can stall. The whole wagon train moves at the pace
> of the slowest camel. It's nice when we can collaborate across
> companies and I'm all for it, but sometimes it's faster to for a
> single company to just assign a couple of people to a project and tell
> them to go do it.
>
> Now, where this gets tricky is when it comes down to whether the
> end-product of that effort is something the community wants. We all
> need to be careful not to make our corporate priorities into community
> priorities. Features shouldn't get committed without a consensus that
> they are both useful and well-implemented, and prior discussion is a
> good way to achieve that. On the whole, I think we've done reasonably
> well in this area. There is often disagreement but in the end I think
> usually end up in a place that is good for PostgreSQL. Hopefully that
> will continue.
>

+1

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2016-05-13 20:04:52 Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-05-13 20:02:01 Re: 10.0