On 2015-05-19 09:43:54 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 05/18/2015 08:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >Maybe we should forget them and just have monthly 'judgefests' where
> >some poor sod summarizes the current state and direction, and we then
> >collaboratively discuss whether we see things going anywhere and if not,
> >what would need to happen that they do. And have a policy that "older"
> >patches should be preferred over newer ones; but at the same time cull
> >patches continually sitting at the tail end as 'not interesting'.
> >
>
> I don't think this will be a productive solution. I would argue that any
> solution we come up with, somebody is going to think they got the short end
> of the stick. There will be someone that thinks it is inefficient, that it
> doesn't suit their needs or that it doesn't work in their paradigm. That is
> why we don't have a proper issue/bug tracker. That is why we are constantly
> "inventing here" instead of relying on the work of others (when it comes to
> this particular problem).
What does that have to do with the suggestion above? That seems entirely
unrelated to changing CFs to a different format.
> I don't know what the solution is but I know I like the idea of a tree
> freeze except for bug fixes for at least 3 weeks but I would be jumping for
> joy if we froze the tree except for bug fixes for 6 or 12 weeks.
We've done that for pretty much every release so far?
> I don't care about 9.6 at this point.
But you don't develop things for it, so you're in a very different
position. It takes a *lot* of time to come up with a serious proposal
for a new feature, and then lots more time to come up with a reasonable
patch. To get a serious feature into 9.6 you pretty much have to already
have started by now.
> We move so fast anyway, most people I know haven't even migrated to
> 9.4.x and even more are happily plugging away on 9.2.
I don't think that's really related to moving fast. It's just that
existing systems don't necessarily need to move - after all they could
put the system into production at their respective version. That's
different to when you consider adopting/extending postgres for a new use
case/product. And there people quit regularly lament a couple problems
in postgres. Say if we, and there's been serious talk about that,
addressed vacuuming being so painful, that'd certainly increase adoption
in the mid term.
Greetings,
Andres Freund