"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ya know, I'm sitting back and reading this, and other threads, and
> assimilating what is being bantered about, and start to think that
> its time to cut back on the gatekeepers ...
On the contrary, the quality of code accepted into a DBMS is really
important. If you disagree with the definition of "code quality" that
some developers are employing, then we can discuss that -- but I think
that as the project matures, we should be more picky about the
features we implement, not less.
> Thomas implemented an option that he felt was useful, and that
> doesn't break anything inside of the code
The problem with this line of thinking is that "it doesn't break
stuff" is not sufficient reason for adding a new feature. The burden
of proof is on the person implementing the new feature.
> ... he provided 2 methods of being able to move the xlog's to
> another location
Yes, but why do we need 2 different ways to do exactly the same thing?
> but, because a small number of ppl "voted" that it should go away,
> it went away ...
They didn't just vote, they provided reasons why they thought the
feature was brain-damaged -- reasons which have not be persuasively
refuted, IMHO. If you'd like to see this feature in the code, might I
suggest that you spend less time complaining about "gate keepers"
(hint: it's called code review), and more time explaining exactly why
the feature is worth having?
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly