Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Page
Subject Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules)
Date
Msg-id 937d27e10901270610i3c543f69j3c7b7756e88cccf7@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules)  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules)  (Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>)
Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules)  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:

> Updatable views is reverted.  I agree that we should reject the rest and
> prepare a release.

That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
development work - that we will arbitrarily reject large patches that
have been worked on following the procedures that we require.

We must at least have the solid belief (of a committer that that has
done a proper review) that a patch cannot be polished in an
appropriate timeframe, or another justifiable reason for rejecting
rather than vague handwaving, guesswork and estimates based on email
traffic.

If we do not, we will rapidly find that no company wants to sponsor
features for PostgreSQL in the future for fear that their money will
be wasted even if they jump through all the right hoops.

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery
Next
From: Timo Savola
Date:
Subject: log_duration_sample config option patch