Discontent with development process (was:Re: pgaccess - the discussion is over)

[trimmed cc list, but left on HACKERS due to the nature of the subject (which 
was changed]
On Monday 13 May 2002 10:56 am, mlw wrote:
> Iavor Raytchev wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > let's see some code.

> > I do not feel neither like 'asking for permisson', nor like 'proving'
> > anything. If somebody wants to help - is welcome.

> I find that this group is frustrating to work with. They seem very
> intolerant of the plurality.

> I did a configuration patch several months ago. I liked it, as did some
> others. It did not affect any existing behavior, but added the ability to
> store configuration information in a different location than the data, and
> share files between multiple PostgreSQL instances.

While I personally felt that your patch was useful, there were other concerns.

> Rather than evaluate the patch, and say it needs these changes, or simply
> applying it, you know, working with the contributor's to make a better
> project, they ranted and raved how they didn't like it, how they wanted
> something better, etc. No good technical reasons were given, mind you, just
> "I don't like this."

I think you might want to reread that thread.  There _were_ in fact technical 
aspects of the situation -- primarily due to the _plurality_ of the 
development process around here.  It isn't 'plural' to have someone announce 
that they have a patch, and then it gets applied without the discussion of 
the established developers.  No -- changes to this codebase are done by a 
plurality -- meaning the entire pgsql-hackers group.  (Well, at least that's 
how it's supposed to be -- it doesn't always work that way.....).

Your patch was discussed -- the resolution seemed to me to be in favor of 
including that functionality in 7.3.  To which I was very happy.

This isn't the Linux kernel with a benevolent dictator who can unilaterally 
apply patches -- this is an oligarchy with the six core developers, together 
with the rest of us, making those decisions as a group.  The discussions 
aren't flames -- at least I didn't take any of those discussions to be 
flames.  While there are a few opinionated ones here (myself included), we do 
tend to take things on technical merit.  Had you patch merited inclusion 
without discussion -- well, that wouldn't have happened, regardless of its 
merits -- we were in beta, IIRC.  IIRI, then I apologize.  In beta new 
features are frowned upon -- and your patch introduced a substantial new 
feature, one that needed careful thought before implemention.

While your patch works for you, as written it didn't necessarily work for 
everyone.  BTW, it would have worked great for me and my purposes, but 
PostgreSQL isn't a vehicle for my personal purposes.

The discussion I remember was a little antsy primarily due to the fact that we 
were in beta.  Then was not the time; now is.  Reintroduce the topic now, and 
let's see what happens.

> I do not get paid to work on PostgreSQL, the time I spend on it is either
> my own or for a project I am working on. I am finding it very unsatisfying.

I do not currently get paid for working on it either.  Do I find it 
satisfying?  Most of the time I do.  But if you don't find it satisfying, 
well, there could be more than one reason.

But the biggest problem I see was the inappropriate timing of the patch.  
Again, _NOW_ would be a good time to reintroduce the topic, as we're not in 
beta, and all of the developers are much more likely to be open to these 
ideas.  But go back to the previous thread in the archives and see where we 
left off first, so that everybody starts on the same page of music.

But understand that those who don't need the functionality are likely not not 
be thrilled by changes to a currently stable codebase.  Although this config 
file stuff is small potatoes compared to the Win32 stuff as recently 
discussed.  And for that, please understand that most of the developers here 
consider Win32 an inferior server platform.  In fact, Win32 _is_ an inferior 
server platform, at least in my opinion.  But, if you want to do the work, 
and it doesn't break my non-Win32 server build, by all means go for it.

With that said, I hope you'll consider sticking it out and seeing it through 
at least two major cycles.
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11