On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:02 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> Given how things worked, i.e. that people were not clear that 9.1
> development had actually started, etc., I am again proposing that we
> have one more CF starting March 15 to get this all cleaned up. Yes, I
> know that wasn't the plan, but I also know that we're really, really
> close on a whole bunch of things, some of which have been in the
> offing for years at this point, and we risk giving people the
> impression, if they don't already have it, that if they're not in the
> "inner circle," their patches get lower priority no matter what their
> merits.
I agree that we have some problems in that area - particularly with
writeable CTEs - but prolonging the schedule isn't going to fix that
problem.
I don't think that's entirely fair to people who planned their work
over the last eight months so that their patches would be committed
before the deadline. I both worked hard to make sure the stuff I
cared most about got committed in time, and passed over projects that
I could not get done in time, even though I *could* have gotten them
done given another two months. I realize there are all sorts of good
reasons why people didn't get things done on time, like, say, the need
to earn a living - but having a time frame and sticking with it is
ultimately better for the project, at least in my opinion. If we have
to slip the end of the CommitFest a little to get a few extra things
in, OK, but adding another two months to the development schedule
that's been published for most of a year is a pretty drastic change.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company