Tom Lane wrote: > Now your original posts back in December were okay, since you were > just letting people know that you intended to work on this over a > long period. But IIRC you've made more than one post with actual > code in it that you seemed to be hoping people would review, and > that I thought was a distraction at this late stage of the cycle. Well, I've gotten to the first three milestones and have posted a patch for each. The first two were before the start of the CF, but I intentionally *didn't* add them to the CF and specifically asked people *not* to let them divert efforts from the release, which has apparently been respected. It wasn't a disingenuous request. Robert, in particular, said before the CF that he would look at the first patch when I had it ready, and has apparently not done so yet because of other priorities, which is as I would wish. I hit the third milestone after the start of the CF and posted it "for the record". If people find that distracting, I'll hold off until I get some indication that it won't be. I think it's a bit unfair to single me out because of that one post, but I think I can handle it. :-) I just want to make sure I'm not missing some gaff I didn't realize I was making. Given how small a portion of each year is actually officially open for feedback, I'd hate to think that posting a couple WIP patches during that narrow window was considered a breach of protocol. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
