Horton

Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Date: 2016-05-13T16:40:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 09:35:40AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
> On 05/13/2016 09:28 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 09:12:23AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
> >>There was no disrespect intended. I was trying to push forth an idea that
> >>multi-company team collaboration is better for the community than single
> >>company team collaboration. I will stand by that assertion.
> >
> >Uh, we are already doing that.  EDB and NTT are working on FDWs and
> >sharding, PostgresPro and someone else is working on a transaction
> >manager, and EDB and 2nd Quadrant worked on parallelism.
> >
> >What is the problem you are trying to solve?
> 
> Hey, if I am wrong that's awesome. The impression I have is the general
> workflow is this:
> 
> 	* Company(1) discusses feature with community
> 	* Company(1) works on patch/feature for a period of time
> 	* Company(1) delivers patch to community
> 	* Standard operation continues (patch review, discussion, etc..)

Yes, there are some cases of that.  I assume it is due to efficiency and
the belief that others aren't interested in helping.  In a way is a
company working on something alone different from a person working on a
patch alone?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+                     Ancient Roman grave inscription +