For: Josh, Stephen, me
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 (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: