Re: Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Taylor [mailto:rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 10:55 AM
> To: Steve Howe
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue
>
>
> > existed, had a brief discussion on the subject, and
> couldn't reach an
> > agreement. That's ok for me, I understand... but releasing versions
> > known to be broken is something I can't understand.
> -9' the postmaster
>
> If we didn't do that, then Postgresql never would have been
> released in the first place, nor any date between then and now.
>
> There has been, and currently is a ton of known broken,
> wonky, or incomplete stuff -- but it's felt that the current
> version has a lot more to offer than the previous version, so
> it's being released.
>
> This works for *all* software. If you never release, nothing
> gets better.
>
>
> I suspect it'll be several more major releases before we
> begin to consider it approaching completely functional.

I believe that the surprise is at the focus, when it comes to a release.
With commercial products (anyway) if you have any sort of show-stopper
bug (crashing, incorrect results, etc.) you do not release the tool
until the bug, and all others like it, are fixed. Bugs that have to do
with appearance or convenience can be overlooked for a release as long
as they are documented in the release notes. Now, it is not unlikely
that there are unintentional show-stopper bugs that get through Q/A.
But intentionally passing them through would be incompetent for a
commercial enterprise.

With open source projects, the empasis tends to be on features, with far
less regard for correcting known problems. Even bugs that can cause a
crash seem to be viewed as acceptable if they happen rarely.

Now, at first blush, the open source strategy seems ludicrous. After
all, who will want to use a product which could potentially (albeit
unlikely) destroy your data or give wrong results? Then, after a bit of
thought, you can see that the same sort of strategy as the open source
projects *is* followed by one very large and very successful software
giant. So maybe "burgeoning featuritis without extreme concern for
robust stability" isn't such a stupid strategy after all. ;-)

All kidding aside, I would like to see increased emphasis on stability
and correctness. But I will admit that it is a lot less fun than adding
new features.