On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> Not basing our release schedule on our commitments to shareholders is
>> an entirely different thing to treating sponsors of major features
>> like crap by arbitrarily bouncing the patches they've paid to have
>> properly developed within the community process with no good reason.
>
> Nobody has suggested bouncing HS; there is only a debate about how soon
> it's likely to be appliable. Any company who imagined they had a
> guarantee about it getting into 8.4 is simply misguided.
I was complaining about it being bounced to 8.5 without proper review
as I've said elsewhere in one of these threads.
> As for SEPostgres, I think that bouncing it entirely is quite a possible
> outcome, but that's because there does not appear to be adequate
> interest to justify taking on a major maintenance burden (and anyone who
> thinks it won't be a major burden is equally misguided --- at the very
> least it will be an endless source of bug reports that we'll be forced
> to classify as security issues, with all the hoop-leaping that that
> entails). We are not bound to accept features that are only wanted by a
> small number of users, no matter how badly those users want them.
That wouldn't be 'arbitrarily bounced' though, it would be with good
reason. And I have no problem with that.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
