-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- --On Wednesday, April 09, 2008 18:33:30 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:50:28 -0400 (EDT) > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Greg Smith wrote: >> > Making sure nothing falls through the cracks is exactly the point >> > of an enforced workflow. It might be a manual operation, it might >> > be some piece of software, but ultimately you need a well-defined >> > process where things move around but don't get dropped. Exactly >> > how said enforcement happens is certainly open to discussion though. >> >> As a volunteer organization we don't have much enforcement control. > > We don't? It's like this :) > > "You want to submit a patch, this is how it's done." > "Oh... You don't want to do it that way?" > "Tough" > > Why is it that because we are a volunteer organization we can't have > enforcement? You document the procedure, and every single time the > issue arises you paste a link with that procedure :) Damn, this is starting to get to be a trend ... but, I can't but agree 100% with this ... we *can* enforce, and I doubt it will have much (if any) affect on the # of patches that come in, since ppl want to see their work committed, and will follow any *reaonable* procedure we have for them to do so ... Do other large projects accept patches 'ad hoc' like we do? FreeBSD? Linux? KDE? - -- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkf9dI8ACgkQ4QvfyHIvDvOFgQCfZ74Yefkh3TGxlmoxf6ujI4La VxIAn3dJRWm4pLUn9Qr7Y2zobyCpXHeG =pazk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
