On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 07/03/2013 03:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > You are way out of line. You have no right to expect ANYONE to > > participate in patch review and commit. Michael is doing us a favor > > by maintaining ECPG even though he's not heavily involved in the > > project any more and has other things to do with his time. > > That's a good point. I hadn't considered (or realized the extent of) > the occasional and specific nature of Michael's involvement with the > project these days. My apologies, then, Michael. > > Is there anyone else on the committer list with similar circumstances?
I spend my available time going through old emails and finding issues that never made it to a commit-fest, but need doing. I am currently in November, 2012. I am volunteering that information, and do not in any way feel I have to justify my time commitment to anyone, except perhaps my employer. If you want, you can remove my commit bit and I will just post all my patches for others to commit --- hard to see how that is an improvement. I will also remind you that before there were commit-fests, Tom and I pretty much did all that work of committing non-committer's patches. But my big feedback is, our community has no right to be asking about committer circumstances. This is a voluntteer project, and people work as they want. The extrapolation of Josh's approach is that committers have to do work that the community wants to maintain their commit rights, but their commit rights are helping the community, so why would people care if you take them away --- you only hurt the community further by doing so. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
