Better to revert than lose a community that is invested in your ecosystem that starts looking elsewhere. I congratulate the team in acknowledging and doing the right thing. As a developer myself, I know it is a painful thing to do but important to listen to the community.
wodenokoto
I’m not sure I like the headline.
A bunch of features that made it to beta turned out not to be in a state that could be made satisfactory for release time and so was reverted.
That seems to me to be the right thing to do. Unfortunate, but the right thing to do.
“[something] will continue until morale improves” is usually a sacastic dig at tone deaf and incompetent leadership (e.g, “firing will continue until morale improves”)
I don’t think that is fair to say here.
swiftcoder
Reverts kind of suck when it's your feature getting reverted, no doubt. But for something as foundational as Postgres, the more reverts the better...
show comments
sublinear
> as far as I can tell, this situation is not due to “vibe coding”. This code was written well before that was a possibility.
Since people refuse to read things on HN, I might as well bubble up this particular bullet point.
andsoitis
I don’t get the meaning of the article subject.
show comments
esafak
This is a strong endorsement of postgres; it shows they take quality control seriously.
TZubiri
is it really necessary to keep using new version of postgres and to keep developing them? is it not done at this point?
Better to revert than lose a community that is invested in your ecosystem that starts looking elsewhere. I congratulate the team in acknowledging and doing the right thing. As a developer myself, I know it is a painful thing to do but important to listen to the community.
I’m not sure I like the headline.
A bunch of features that made it to beta turned out not to be in a state that could be made satisfactory for release time and so was reverted.
That seems to me to be the right thing to do. Unfortunate, but the right thing to do.
“[something] will continue until morale improves” is usually a sacastic dig at tone deaf and incompetent leadership (e.g, “firing will continue until morale improves”)
I don’t think that is fair to say here.
Reverts kind of suck when it's your feature getting reverted, no doubt. But for something as foundational as Postgres, the more reverts the better...
> as far as I can tell, this situation is not due to “vibe coding”. This code was written well before that was a possibility.
Since people refuse to read things on HN, I might as well bubble up this particular bullet point.
I don’t get the meaning of the article subject.
This is a strong endorsement of postgres; it shows they take quality control seriously.
is it really necessary to keep using new version of postgres and to keep developing them? is it not done at this point?