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

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

PostgreSQL is a miracle of good development practices. Companies can
collaborate or contribute any manner the see fit along with the
community at large. Demands made on others based on opinion and/of
selfish benefit gets you nowhere fast and that's a good thing.

Open source projects, especially the bigger/better run ones, tend to
migrate towards development processes that are highly informal and
great in terms of the ratio of effort to progress in all things,
including and especially, collaboration. I regularly emulate the way
things are done here as best I can which tends to completely freak out
the more corporate type developers that run most of the bigger shops.
If I'm writing emails around here, it's probably because five minutes
earlier some developer refused to fix a bug because the resolution
wasn't notated properly in some byzantine requirements document.
Solace.

merlin