Message-ID: <4637A636.90900@dunslane.net>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:42:30 -0400
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.8.0.10) Gecko/20070301 Fedora/1.0.8-0.6.2.fc6 pango-text
	SeaMonkey/1.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: josh@agliodbs.com
CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report
References: <200705011452.l41EqPN10520@momjian.us>
	<200705011055.43132.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<46379E9F.2030608@dunslane.net>
	<200705011331.39248.josh@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <200705011331.39248.josh@agliodbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Josh Berkus wrote:
> Andrew,
>
>   
>> So if the commercial
>> backers of PostgreSQL want better management of the project, maybe they
>> need to find some resources to help out.
>>     
>
> I don't think they really care, or we'd have heard something by now.  I 
> think this is up to us PG developers.
>
>   

Well, I have no confidence that any formal system will succeed without 
someone trusted by core and committers stepping up to the plate to do 
the required ongoing legwork.

As for voting on patches, that seems a most un-postgres-like way of 
doing things. What is more, it assumes that multiple people will be 
reviewing patches. Our trouble right now is finding even one qualified 
reviewer with enough time for some patches.

cheers

andrew