Jan Wieck wrote:
> > I don't see how timing has anything to do with this.  You could have
> > added it between beta1 and beta2 after sufficient hackers discussion. 
> > Doing it the way you did with no warning, right before beta, and then
> > leaving is the worse of all times.  I am surprised we are not backing
> > out the patch and requiring that the patch go through the formal review
> > process.
> > 
> > This is not the first time you have had trouble with patches.  There was
> > an issue with your patch of February, 2007:
> > 
> >     http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg00385.php
> That email might contain the keyword COMMIT, but it doesn't have to do 
> with anything I committed to CVS. The trigger changes you are referring 
> to have been discussed and a patch for discussion was presented here:
>      http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg00146.php

Right, but at the time you didn't want to give a good explaination and I
had to ask for it.  That should not have been necessary.

> > (In summary, you had to be coaxed to explain your patch to the
> > community.)  Basically, I am not sure you understand the process that
> > has to be followed, or feel you are somehow immune from following it.
> I don't see how you leap from the above example to that conclusion.

You have had only a few commits in 2007, and there have been two
problems.  That ratio seems too high to me, hence my questions above.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to