Re: Last gasp - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Last gasp |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20120412153448.GA3379@momjian.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Last gasp (Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Last gasp
(Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: Last gasp (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) Re: Last gasp (Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 03:34:31PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Something that I would suggest is that those that are receiving > funding be transparent about it. It isn't essential of course, but to > do any less might lead to the perception of there being a conflict of > interests in some people's minds, which is best avoided. > > I am conscious of the fact that I've expressed lots of opinions on > this thread on our processes and so on, some of which, if followed > through on, would be quite large departures. I hope that they were > received as modest suggestions. I appreciate everything everyone said in this thread, and I can't think of an example off the top of my head where vendors adversely affected our process. I think the _big_ reason for that is that our community members have always acted with a "community first" attitude that has insulated us from many of the pressures vendors can place on the development process. I am sure that protection will continue --- I just wanted to point out that it is a necessary protection so we can all be proud of our released code and feature set, and continue working as a well-coordinated team. The specific suggestion that vendors are not taking contributors seriously unless they have commit-bits is perhaps something that requires education of vendors, or perhaps my blogging about this will help. Greg Smith's analysis really hit home with me: > a non trivial number of business people who assume "!committer == > ![trusted|competent]". That makes having such a limited number of > people who can commit both a PR issue ("this project must not be > very important if there are only 19 committers") and one limiting > sponsorship ("I'm not going to pay someone to work on this feature > who's been working on it for years but isn't even a committer"). I think the big take-away, education-wise, is that for our project, committer == grunt work. Remember, I used to be the big committer of non-committer patches --- need I say more. ;-) LOL -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
pgsql-hackers by date: