On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>> This patch, on the other hand, was massively revised after the start
>> of the CommitFest after many months of inactivity and committed with
>> no thorough review by anyone who was truly independent of the
>> development effort.  It was then committed with no warning over a
>> specific request, from another committer, that more time be allowed
>> for review.
> I would not (nor do I feel that I did..) have committed it over a
> specific request to not do so from another committer.

Well, you're wrong.  How could this email possibly have been any more clear?


You can hardly tell me you didn't see that email when you incorporated
the technical content into the next patch version.

> While I wasn't public about it, I actually specifically discussed this
> question with others, a few times even, to try and make sure that I
> wasn't stepping out of line by moving forward.

And yet you completely ignored the only public commentary on the
issue, which was from me.

I *should not have had* to object to this patch going in.  It was
clearly untimely for the August CommitFest, and as a long-time
community member, you ought to know full well that any such patch
should be resubmitted to a later CommitFest.  This patch sat on the
shelf for 4 months because you were too busy to work on it, and was
committed 5 days from the last posted version, which version had zero
review comments.  If you didn't have time to work on it for 4 months,
you can hardly expect everyone else who has an opinion to comment
within 5 days.

But, you know, because I could tell that you were fixated on pushing
this patch through to commit quickly, I took the time to send you a
message on that specific point, even though you should have known full
well.  In fact I took the time to send TWO.  Here's the other one:


> All-in-all, I feel appropriately chastised and certainly don't wish to
> be surprising fellow committers.  Perhaps we can discuss at the dev
> meeting.

No, I think we should discuss it right now, not nine months from now
when the issue has faded from everyone's mind.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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

Reply via email to