On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 06:19:19PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > Now I can see some people are annoyed, so I'm happy to apologize if > I've done things that weren't understood or caused annoyance. Time is > short at end of CF and tempers fray for us all. > > If Tom or Andres still feel that their concerns have not been > addressed over the last few days, I am happy to revert the patch with > no further discussion from me in this cycle.
Yep, I think the right thing, as you have just done, is to ask for clear confirmation on revert, and accept whatever people say. I would revert if anyone requests it. To summarize how I see this patch, we have this workflow at the top of the TODO list (which I think Simon helped with or suggested): Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit I think the MERGE patch spent a long time getting through the first and second stages, and now the objections appear to be related to implementation. I think the implementation issues only appeared during the final commitfest, which made it feel like a new patch. Yes, it had been through the first two stages before the final commitfest. I think one of the missing rules we have is that when we say no new large patches in the final commitfest, do we mean that all _three_ stages should be solidified before the final commitfest? I have never been clear on that point. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@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 +