On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:51 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Not basing our release schedule on our commitments to shareholders is
> an entirely different thing to treating sponsors of major features
> like crap by arbitrarily bouncing the patches they've paid to have
> properly developed within the community process with no good reason.
Certainly but I haven't seen a suggestion to that. Updateable views has
as I have seen in threads, issues that can not be fixed in the
appropriately time line. If they can be fixed for 8.5 great.
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
