Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > My big point is that we should choose a system that would have had a
> > better chance of completing features than what we have used in the past,
> > and no one has suggested one.
> >
> > It is just like the bug tracker issue. Many think we need a bugtracker,
> > but when I ask to see a project that has one that is better than what we
> > have now, no one responds. Again, the same criteria should be applied
> > to this issue.
> >
> > If people want to do something different with no objective hope it will
> > be better, feel free to go ahead and do it, but I can't get excited
> > about spending time on it.
> >
>
> I give up. You say "try something else and we'll see what works best."
> I respond "great idea.". Then you say "but it won't work anyway." Is it
> any wonder people get frustrated? Why give the illusion of an open mind
> when you have already made up your mind?
I am saying other people can try a new system, but I don't have time to
try something different when no evidence has been given that it is
better (just different).
> >>> Or try a new system, and I will keep doing what I do, and we can see
> >>> which system works best.
I realized when I said, "we can try" that I was being inconsistent, but
I was just saying that if others want to try something, go ahead. I
personally don't see how it will improve things, but if others want to
spend time on it, they are welcome to do that.
What I am not willing to do is to abandon a system that works for one
that doesn't have evidence it is an improvement, and I don't want to
spend time on a new system just for the sake of trying to do two systems
at once.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
