PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly
PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly
Posted May 21, 2015 23:08 UTC (Thu) by simon@2ndQuadrant.com (guest, #102687)In reply to: PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly by jberkus
Parent article: PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly
The term was first coined by Tom Lane here
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4373.1193177340@sss....
after I (Simon Riggs) had suggested almost exactly what we have now, in this post/reply
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9973.1193146198@sss....
Which just goes to show that whatever the facts are, there are always multiple viewpoints on them.
My view is that the process isn't broken, we're just undercapacity. While that might appear as a problem, it says good things about the PostgreSQL project.
One point in that regard that I want to repeat publicly: if every patch needs a reviewer then we clearly need as many reviewers as we do patches. My proposed solution of this is to force developers to provide one review for every patch they submit. Otherwise everybody just writes patches and fewer people review.
Posted May 21, 2015 23:16 UTC (Thu)
by jberkus (guest, #55561)
[Link]
Oh, I've been blamed for the commitfests so many times I figured I must be responsible. If you wanna take the blame for them, them please be my guest. ;-)
Posted May 22, 2015 19:12 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
But it doesn't say that the process shouldn't be changed.
Being undercapacity for the existing process doesn't mean that you would be undercapacity for a different process.
going off on a slight tangent as an example
One thing you learn from dealing with auditors is that what you try do do doesn't matter nearly as much as if you do what you say you are going to do
If you have company A that says that they do a very basic process, but actually do it, they will do much better in audits than company B that says they do a 10x better process but are undercapacity to dot all the i's and cross all the t's of their process and so are only 5x better in practice.
PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly
PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly