Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 10/8/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:32:19PM +0000, Jan Wieck wrote:
>>> Log Message:
>>> -----------
>>> Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as discussed
>>> on CORE previously.
> To explain the situation, the public discussion about the current
> submission happened here:
> and here:

Ok. That certainly explains it - it did sound weird to have that go in
without any public discussion at all - but none of those lists are
pgsql-hackers ;-)

> And ofcourse, the original submission was at 2006-07 to _8.2_:

Ah. I only searched for this year, since I only considered submissions
for 8.3. But still, it wasn't AFAIK on any of the patch lists etc.

> It was rejected then mostly on 3 reasons (from my POV):
> - it was messy and contained unnecesary cruft.
> - it was submitted to core not /contrib
> - slony was not interested in it at that moment
> Now as you can read from recent disussion we had, we found out
> that it would be *really* *really* cool if it would appear
> in 8.3...  Talk about last moment...

Well, if it's really really cool to have, why do we put it in /contrib?
If it's that cool, it should be in core, no?

That's not just making comments, I really *do* think that it should be
in core if it's interesting enough to be added to contrib at this time.

> Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
> whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly.  That's
> my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have
> their own opinion.

Right. I can see your point, but it's my understanding that -hackers is
really the ones supposed to decide on this.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to