On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:16:09AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> What I am afraid though is that it basically goes on like this in the
> next commitfests:
> * 9.4-CF1: no "serious" reviewer comments because they are busy doing release work
> * 9.4-CF2: all are relieved that the release is over and a bit tired
> * 9.4-CF3: first deeper review, some more complex restructuring required
> * 9.4-CF4: too many changes to commit.
>
> If you look at the development of the feature, after the first prototype
> and the resulting design changes nobody with decision power had a more
> than cursory look at the proposed interfaces. Thats very, very, very
> understandable, you all are busy people and the patch & the interfaces
> are complex so it takes noticeable amounts of time, but it unfortunately
> doesn't help in getting an acceptable interface nailed down.
>
> The problem with that is not only that it sucks huge amounts of energy
> out of me and others but also that its very hard to really build the
> layers/users above changeset extraction without being able to rely on
> the interface and semantics. So we never get to the actually benefits
> :(, and we don't get the users people require for the feature to be
> committed.
>
> So far, the only really effective way of getting people to comment on
> patches in this state & complexity is the threat of an upcoming commit
> because of the last commitfest :(
>
> I honestly don't know how to go on about this...
This is very accurate and the big challenge of large, invasive patches.
You almost need to hit it perfect the first time to get it committed in
less than a year.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
