Robert Treat wrote:
> The revisionism was that of "remarkable failure". That was our shortest
> release cycle in the modern era. And it didn't have the advantage of the
> commitfest process.
>
> But I think what is important here is to recognize why it didn't work. Once
> again we ended up with large, complex features (HOT, tsearch) that people
> didn't want to wait 14 months to see if they missed the 8.3 release. And yes,
> most of these same arguements were raised then... "full text search is killer
> feature", "whole applications are waiting for in-core full text search", "hot
> will give allow existing customers to use postgres on a whole new
> level", "not fair to push back patches so long when developers followed the
> rules", "sponsors wont want to pay for features they wont see for
> years", "developers dont want to wait so long to see features committed", and
> on and on...
I think the big reminder for me from above is that we will always have
big stuff that doesn't make a certain major release, and trying to
circumvent our existing process is usually a mistake.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
