Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, no, it's not. We have told people till we're blue in the face
> > "post early, post often". Now I will plead guilty to not always
> > having spent as much time giving feedback on draft patches as I
> > should've, but the process is pretty clear. As I see it the main
> > problem is people undertaking patches off in corners somewhere rather
> > than discussing their work on the mailing lists while they do it.
>
> Again, process support. If all we can offer people is to post
> multi-megabyte patches to the mailing list every month, that totally
> doesn't help. We'd need ways to track the progress on these things:
> what was the specification for that patch, where was the discussion on
> it, what has changed in the patch since the last time, since the time
> before last time, what is left to be done, who has worked on it, etc.
> Figuring out the answer to those questions from a mailing list archive
> is tedious to the point that no one wants to do it.
Uh, Tom has been tracking Gavin on the bitmap patch every week for
weeks, and I pummelled EnterpriseDB/Jonah over the recursive query
patch. Neither effort was very fruitful, but tracking wasn't what made
them fail. I am not saying tracking is wrong, but rather tracking would
not have helped make these things happen faster.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
