On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> I've never messed with completion so I don't know how hard it is, but my
> impression is that it gets added after the fact not because of any
> intentional decisions but because people simply forget about it. ISTM it
> would be more efficient of community resources to deal with completion in
> the original patch, unless there's some reason not to.
> IOW, no, don't make it a hard requirement, but don't omit it simply through
> forgetfulness.

Because our biggest problem around here is that it's too easy to get
patches committed, so we should add some more requirements?

I think it's great to include tab completion support in initial
patches if people are willing to do that, but I'm not prepared to
insist on it.  Anyway, it's not just a yes-or-no thing; it's pretty
common that people go back later and add more tab completion to things
that already have some tab completion.  So if we adopt the rule you
are proposing, then the next question will be whether a given patch
has ENOUGH tab completion.  Ugh.

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