Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 January 2009 20:12:40 Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> Our usual process *is* to try and circumvent our usual process. And I believe
> it will continue to be that way until we lower the incentive to lobby for
> circumvention.
>
Anybody lobbying to get the process circumvented gets their feature
reverted? :-)
cheers
andrew
