Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > We do ask people to write docs, but I > > don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs. > > Yes, that is a good example. It's "a rule", plain and simple. Nobody > gets their spleen removed for breaking it, yet it is still somehow > enforced. > > I find it strange that suggesting a new rule is opposed on the general > basis that *any* rule cannot be enforced; surely therefore we cannot > have new rules at all, ever? We clearly do have new rules from time to > time. So what's wrong with this new rule? > > Should we update the FAQ to say, "enclosing docs with a patch is a rule, > but actually its not really and you only suffer mild rebuke if you break > it and can therefore be ignored"?
Well, right now we ask for docs, but if they are not supplied, I think we just write them ourselves. Is a different enforcement method being suggested here? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
