On Oct 9, 2009, at 1:21 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
You have posted patches that I have said I don't agree with. My
name is
going to be on this when it goes in, so I don't think it makes any
sense
to force that commit to include changes I don't agree with. I cannot
prevent you making changes afterwards, nor would I wish to. I'd
like you
to respond sensibly to comments on those. We should work together
on a
consensus basis, especially since I know you have not fully tested
your
changes (either). Your error rate might be lower than mine, but it is
non-zero.
The commit message and release notes mention might have just Simon's
name, or multiple people.
The hot patch commit is going to have multiple people involved
before it
is committed, so if Simon is worried that the patch will have ideas in
it he does not agree with, perhaps we can make sure the commit and
release note items include Heikki's name as well. Normally if a
committer makes signficant changes to a patch, the committer's name is
also added to the commmit message, and I suggest we do the same thing
here with hot standby.
I think this is a weakness of our current style of heavy-weight
commits. I don't have a great suggestion for fixing it, though. Even
if we move to git, a major feature like this has such a complex
development history that I'm queasy about slurping it in unsquashed.
But at least for simple features I think that there would be a value
in separating the patch author's work from the committer's adjustments.
I realize (now) that this would complicate the release note generation
process somewhat, based on our current process, and there might be
other downsides as well. All the same, I think it has enough value to
make it worth thinking about whether there's some way to make it work.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
