Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > I have frequently been the agent of change in matters of process, but I see > no useful change here, just lots of wasted time. But then why are we even > talking about change? What thing is broken that needs to be fixed? Why is > adopting a new package a fix for that?
Fair questions indeed. I think the core points here are:
1. We don't have a good process for making sure things don't "slip through the cracks". I think everyone more or less relies on Bruce to run through his mailbox periodically and nag them about threads that don't seem to have been closed off. The deficiencies of that are obvious.
I don't rely on that myself. That sounds like a personal viewpoint only. I welcome more discussion amongst Committers with regard to coordination, but formal systems aren't what I think will help there. That situation has recently improved anyway, so no further change needed at present, IMHO.
2. There's no visibility for outsiders as to what issues are open or recently fixed. Not being outsiders, I'm not sure that we are terribly well qualified to describe this problem precisely or identify a good solution --- but I grant that there's a problem there.
If they can perform "git log" they can view what has happened recently. Tracking what might happen is much harder for active contributors.
I've never had a user ask me for such a list. All I here is compliments that our software is incredibly robust.
The only time this info is required is for people that provide a Support service based upon PostgreSQL, yet are not themselves sufficiently involved to know what bugs have been reported and are as yet unfixed. I expect such people are extremely interested in getting other people to do things that will help their business.
I don't see a sustainable mechanism that can support the manpower resources required to provide that information to those people, apart from become an active contributor, or pay someone who is.
I do not know how much emphasis the project should place on point #2. By definition, fixing that will not return any direct benefit to us. However, point #1 is clearly an issue and I think a low-overhead fix for it would be a good thing. If we can get some answer for #2 out of it at the same time, even better.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
