Simon, * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 23 September 2014 07:45, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> > wrote: > > OTOH, if the patch is actually OK as it was committed, there's no point > > reverting it only to commit it again later. At the end of the day, the > > important thing is that the patch gets sufficient review. Clearly Stephen > > thinks that it did, while you and Andres do not. > > I would observe that not requesting a revert would be inconsistent > against all other situations I have seen or been involved with.
A revert wasn't requested by the individual who raised the concern (or, indeed, explicitly by *anyone*.. it was hinted at, but I felt the individuals who were hinting at it were leaving it up to that individual who had a concern), and I discussed it with him extensively and we came to what I believe is an understanding. I'm not sure that I understand the need to bring it up again, unless you have a concern regarding what was committed. I agree that I jumped the gun on it and said as much. On the flip side, it's not had quite a bit of review and there is a promise of more, which I feel is great for the project as a whole. > My major reason to revert is the following: the documentation contains > no examples of real world usage, making the feature essentially > unusable out of the box. I find this to be an interesting argument considering most of our documentation doesn't include real-world examples. I'm happy to add more examples than those listed thus far, certainly, though I've understood documentation to be of less general importance than code quality and maintainability- and someone willing and committed to maintain it. > I attended Stephen's talk at PostgesOpen and > even that didn't contain real cases either, leaving me to ask > questions about stuff I thought I knew. This would be sufficient for > me to reject commit of any other patch, so it is sufficient reason > here also. Yeb can supply a useful real world case if there is some > restriction on explaining what this might be used for. This wouldn't be the only case of documentation (indeed, *any* documentation) being added after a commit, and so I'm mystified by this requirement for *real-world* examples in documentation to be provided prior to commit. > Stephen, I want this patch in 9.5 and I would very much like to see it > go in before Oct 31. But please follow consensus, revert the patch > now, address the minor issues as requested and then ask for re-commit > later, as you should have done in the first place. Simon, if you want me to revert it because of an objection over the design, code quality, maintainability, or utter lack of documentation, then I absolutely respect that request and would be happy to do so. This request I am completely lost on. Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature