Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Well, no, it's not. We have told people till we're blue in the face > > "post early, post often". Now I will plead guilty to not always > > having spent as much time giving feedback on draft patches as I > > should've, but the process is pretty clear. As I see it the main > > problem is people undertaking patches off in corners somewhere rather > > than discussing their work on the mailing lists while they do it. > > Again, process support. If all we can offer people is to post > multi-megabyte patches to the mailing list every month, that totally > doesn't help. We'd need ways to track the progress on these things: > what was the specification for that patch, where was the discussion on > it, what has changed in the patch since the last time, since the time > before last time, what is left to be done, who has worked on it, etc. > Figuring out the answer to those questions from a mailing list archive > is tedious to the point that no one wants to do it.
Uh, Tom has been tracking Gavin on the bitmap patch every week for weeks, and I pummelled EnterpriseDB/Jonah over the recursive query patch. Neither effort was very fruitful, but tracking wasn't what made them fail. I am not saying tracking is wrong, but rather tracking would not have helped make these things happen faster. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
