On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
> > prepare a release.
>
> That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
> development work - that we will arbitrarily reject large patches that
> have been worked on following the procedures that we require.
We are not subject to the whims of company sponsorship. We are not a
company with shareholders... Where have I heard that before?
>
> We must at least have the solid belief (of a committer that that has
> done a proper review) that a patch cannot be polished in an
> appropriate timeframe, or another justifiable reason for rejecting
> rather than vague handwaving, guesswork and estimates based on email
> traffic.
>
If this is actually what happen then I agree. I am not sure that it is
though.
> If we do not, we will rapidly find that no company wants to sponsor
> features for PostgreSQL in the future for fear that their money will
> be wasted even if they jump through all the right hoops.
>
I sincerely doubt this. The sponsoring company if properly educated
about the process understands this is a possibility. It is a risk. If
they don't have a contract in place that allows for things like this
including responsibility on the developer end, then that is there
problem. Not to mention the developer could offer to support their patch
for a time until it is mature enough to be committed.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 -
http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
