On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 7:42 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 10:17 AM David G. Johnston > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The argument being made is that the enum patch adheres to established > practices; and when adding new code that new code is encouraged to adhere > to how existing code is written. A vote to keep to such guidelines seems > reasonable and sufficient; and can outweigh quite a bit of deficiency such > existing code may have relative to the new proposal. The burden is on the > new code to justify why it should violate established conventions. > > I kind of agree with that, but: > > 1. We're talking about a minor deviation resulting in a very small > amount of additional code. It's entirely unclear to me why anyone > thinks this is a big deal either way, even if one accepts that the > patch is "wrong", which I don't. > > I'm willing to say "I don't know why this is so very important to Nikolay, but I trust him that it is, and since my opinion isn't that strong and this isn't a big deal, so I will accommodate the person screaming that adding this will make their life miserable in a real way." Maybe others need more evidence of what that misery looks like? David J.
