Greetings, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:28 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > I suppose we could have a moratorium on commits starting from (say) EOB > > Wednesday of the week prior to the release; patches can only be > > committed after that if they have ample support (where "ample support" > > might be defined as having +1 from, say, two other committers). That > > way there's time to discuss/revert/fix anything that is deemed > > controversial. > > Or we could have a moratorium on any change at any time that has a -1 > from a committer and a +1 from nobody.
What about a change that's already been committed but another committer feels caused a regression? If that gets a -1, does it get reverted until things are sorted out, or...? In the situation that started this discussion, a change had already been made and it was only later realized that it caused a regression. Piling on to that, the regression was entwined with other important changes that we wanted to include in the release. Having a system where when the commit was made is a driving factor seems like it would potentially reward people who pushed a change early by giving them the upper hand in such a discussion as this. Ultimately though, I still agree with Andres that this is something we should act to avoid these situation and we shouldn't try to make a policy to fit what's been a very rare occurance. If nothing else, I feel like we'd probably re-litigate the policy every time since it would likely have been a long time since the last discussion of it and the specific circumstances will always be at least somewhat different. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
