Hi, On 2018-04-07 13:33:53 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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
The current implementation effort publicly started 2017-10-27. For a major feature that's really not that long ago. There also were a few gaps in which no public development/discussion happened. >, 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'm not sure there was agreement on the design even. A lot of that has been discussed until very recently. > 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. I think the implementation at the least should be roughly ready, and implement a roughly agreed upon design. It's fine to change things around, but major re-engineering surely is an alarm sign. Greetings, Andres Freund