Thread: LAST CALL FOR 9.1
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I'm going to share it before someone announces a deadline has passed or > something. (whistling) Speaking of that, it is now Saturday, January 15, 2011 and CommitFest 2011-01 is now in progress. If you have any patches that you haven't submitted yet, have submitted but not listed in the CommitFest app yet, or (loud ahem) you have any patches that you listed on the CommitFest app with a fake message id but haven't actually submitted yet, please plan to rectify that in the next 8 hours or so, or else add them to CF 2011-Next, which is now the open CommitFest. It is really already too late for us to be seriously considering integrating sync rep into 9.1. It will lead to another enormous beta period during which the tree will be closed to new patches and everyone will complain, or else we'll open the tree for 9.2 development and a different though overlapping set of people will complain about that, but if I try to bring down the gavel and actually insist that we don't consider sync rep, then a third, different, also overlapping set of people will complain about that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Jan 15, 2011, at 6:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > It is really already too late for us to be seriously considering > integrating sync rep into 9.1. It will lead to another enormous beta > period during which the tree will be closed to new patches and > everyone will complain, or else we'll open the tree for 9.2 > development and a different though overlapping set of people will > complain about that, but if I try to bring down the gavel and actually > insist that we don't consider sync rep, then a third, different, also > overlapping set of people will complain about that. I hereby complain about your complaints about the complainers. There, you lose. ;-P David
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 1:59 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com> wrote: > On Jan 15, 2011, at 6:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> It is really already too late for us to be seriously considering >> integrating sync rep into 9.1. It will lead to another enormous beta >> period during which the tree will be closed to new patches and >> everyone will complain, or else we'll open the tree for 9.2 >> development and a different though overlapping set of people will >> complain about that, but if I try to bring down the gavel and actually >> insist that we don't consider sync rep, then a third, different, also >> overlapping set of people will complain about that. > > I hereby complain about your complaints about the complainers. > > There, you lose. ;-P Yeah, I needed a fourth way to do that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 1/15/11 6:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> It is really already too late for us to be seriously considering
> integrating sync rep into 9.1. It will lead to another enormous beta
> period during which the tree will be closed to new patches and
> everyone will complain, or else we'll open the tree for 9.2
> development and a different though overlapping set of people will
> complain about that, but if I try to bring down the gavel and actually
> insist that we don't consider sync rep, then a third, different, also
> overlapping set of people will complain about that.
Given that people are going to complain regardless, that gives you a lot
of freedom, no?
I'm more liberal; if we have a working-with-minor-bugs version of Sync
Rep by 2/15, I'm OK with it being in 9.1. However, if major issues
remain outstanding ... or major disputes on features/API ... then boot it.
It's really up to Simon/Heikki/Fujii as to whether that's a realistic
goal. Certainly there's been a lot of work to *simplify* Synch Rep this
year.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com