From: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
---|---|
To: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Cc: | "Ragi Y(dot) Burhum" <rburhum(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: knngist patch support |
Date: | 2010-02-11 06:16:09 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.1002110835430.16860@sn.sai.msu.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
This is very disgraceful from my point of view and reflects real problem
in scheduling of CF. The patch was submitted Nov 23 2009, discussed and
reworked Nov 25. Long holidays in December-January, probably are reason why
there were no any movement on reviewing the patch. People with
inspiration spent time to discuss rbtree, while it was clear, that rbtree is
a minor issue. Now we have no review and great feature is missing. I understand
that some healthy resistance is useful to let developers more accurate and
discipline, but, hey, not dropping great feature ! I'd understand if developer
is missing, or just not willing to contact, but I and Teodor are here and
we readily answer any questions.
I failed to find any documents about commitfest to understand if we already
discussed all possible scenario of feature drop. If we say 'A', when started
to formalize our development process instead of old way discuss&vote
in -hackers, then we should say 'B' - formalize procedure and possible
collision of interests.
Oleg
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 04:49:59PM -0800, Ragi Y. Burhum wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I noticed this morning that the k nearest neighbor gist patch
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=230 was still being
>> considered for inclusion in 9. Sadly, this feature appears to have been
>> dropped from 9.
>
> This has been discussed recently on this list. Seems the patch would
> need more review to be considered stable. So it's the hard choice of
> letting the schedule for 9.0 slip or not letting this patch in.
>
> But some prerequisites will go in, that's the good news.
>
> (BTW: I tried to find this discussion in the Web archives, but had no
> luck. It's in my mailbox, though --
>
> e.g.
>
> message-ID 603c8f071002070527j1dada7cdseb42e7cbc71bf71a(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
>
> part of the long thread "Damage control mode", starting on Jan 8, 2010;
> this one mail is from Feb 7 -- but that might be me)
>
> Regards
> - -- tomЪЪs
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFLc5YoBcgs9XrR2kYRAoW3AJ94tYWPenLOjH4B4GHD9DCYSSWYOQCeOcoM
> RYDhINv+k9YeD23xFHyj9yw=
> =K1E0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru)
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Дмитрий Фефелов | 2010-02-11 06:26:15 | Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |
Previous Message | Andrew McNamara | 2010-02-11 06:04:08 | Re: Confusion over Python drivers |