Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Now, if I don't understand the patch, we can change the procedure so I > > require someone to state it is OK rather than the fallback of quiet > > acceptance, especially just before a beta or RC version. > > I am not suggesting that we need to tighten up during devel cycle, > and maybe not during early beta. But once we approach RC I think > we need a tighter process. We really want a "get it right the first > time" mentality to apply at this point, whereas during development > there's always time to catch problems later.
OK, makes sense. Maybe we shouldn't have gone to RC so quickly but given time to get reviews on those patches. > > Also, because the bad patch got in there is a temptation to believe our > > process is flawed, > > Don't forget you applied *two* very questionable patches on Thursday. > Had it been only one I'm not sure there'd be this degree of unhappiness. It was three weeks of back patches so two is not surprising, especially related to encodings, which I don't understand. You know, Peter has dealt with all the translation encodings for a long time. It would be good for someone who understands encodings to take ownership of the encoding patches. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(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
