Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > I think it'd be a different discussion if this where CF-1 or so. But > > we're nearly *2* months after the the *end* of the last CF. > > There wouldn't be any discussion if it was CF-1 as I doubt anyone would > object to it going in (or at least not as strongly..), even if it was > submitted after CF-1 was supposed to be over with remaining patches. > It's the threat of getting punted to the next release that really makes > the difference here, imv.
That's why we have this rule that CF4 should only receive patches that were already reviewed in previous commitfests. I, too, find the fast-tracking of this patch completely outside of the CF process to be distasteful. We summarily reject much smaller patches at the end of each cycle process, even when the gain is as obvious as is claimed to be for this patch. TBH I don't see why we're even discussing this. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
