Hello Vik,

For: Josh, Stephen, me
Against: Robert
Neutral: Tom, you

For the record, I'm not neutral, I'm *FOR*. I reviewed it and said that I think it is fine. But I'm still nobody here:-)

My experience at trying to pass minor patches shows that the basic behavior is conservatism. Maybe this is necessary to the stability of the project, but this is really annoying for pretty small changes on side tools, and I think that it tends to over-conservatism and ampers good will. You have to argue a lot about trivial things. My ratio for passing very minor patches on pgbench for instance is 1:3 or worst, 1 unit programming and testing versus 3 units writing mails to argue about this and that. Maybe the ratio is better for big important patches. Your patch is quite representative, 1 line of trivial code, a few lines of tests and docs, and how many lines and time at writing mails?

I don't know if that's enough of a consensus to commit it, but I do
think it's not nearly enough of a consensus to reject it.

My guess is that it won't be committed if there is a single "but it might break one code or surprise one user somewhere in the universe", but I wish I'll be proven wrong. IMO, "returned with feedback" on a 1 liner is really akin to "rejected".


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to