On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:17 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> My general point here is that I would like to know whether we have a
> finite number of reasonably localized bugs or a three-ring disaster
> that is unrecoverable no matter what we do. Andres seems to think it
> is the latter, and I *think* Peter Geoghegan agrees, but I think that
> the point might be worth a little more discussion. I'm unclear whether
> Tom's dislike for the feature represents hostility to the concept -
> with which I would have to disagree - or a judgement on the quality of
> the implementation - which might be justified. For the record, and to
> Peter's point, I think it's reasonable to set v15 feature freeze as a
> drop-dead date for getting this feature into acceptable shape, but I
> would like to try to nail down what we think "acceptable" means in
> this context.
What I had in mind was this: a committer adopting the feature
themselves. The committer would be morally obligated to maintain the
feature on an ongoing basis, just as if they were the original
committer. This seems like the only sensible way of resolving this
issue once and for all.
If it really is incredibly important that we keep this feature, or one
like it, then I have to imagine that somebody will step forward --
there is still ample opportunity. But if nobody steps forward, I'll be
forced to conclude that perhaps it wasn't quite as important as I
first thought. Anybody can agree that it's important in an abstract
sense -- that's easy. What we need is a committer willing to sign on
the dotted line, which we're no closer to today than we were a year
ago. Actions speak louder than words.
--
Peter Geoghegan
