Re: Patch queue concern

"Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:

>> It favours people who are short-sighted and don't see what possible
>> improvements their code has. No code in an ongoing project like this is ever
>> "completed" anyways.
>
> It favors those who do not wait until the last minute, but complete them
> well before the freeze date.

What is this "complete" you keep talking about? Should I stop working on the
sort/limit patch even though Heikki pointed out a few things to clean up and
the cost model isn't updated yet just so that you'll consider it "complete"
and put it on the patch queue? If I don't stop working on it you think we
should just ignore it even if it's in a usable state now? Even the cost model
changes could be done pretty easily with some guidance from a review.

>> It's also an artifact of the working model we have where patches are sent in
>> big chunks and reviewed much later during a feature freeze. If we were
>> committing directly into a CVS repository we would have wanted to commit these
>> changes as soon as they were ready for committing, not wait until they're
>> "completed". Then continue working and commit further changes. It's only
>
> This would have CVS containing uncomplete features --- and before beta,
> we would either have to beg the authors to complete them, or rip them
> out, neither of which we want to do.

You don't want to commit something if it's in an unusable state and would have
to be ripped out without more work. I said "as soon as they're ready for
committing" as opposed to "completed".

You're asking people if they've stopped working on patches and you're
surprised to find that there are a lot of patches people are still working on.

That's silly, of course people are still working on them, many of these tasks
are open ended and can be improved as long as we have time. just because
they're still working on them doesn't necessarily mean what they have so far
isn't worth committing as is yet.

> OK, but we don't want something that is ready to be committed, we need
> it complete.

So how many more releases before you think Postgres is "complete"?

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com