On 10/9/2007 4:22 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
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
> This is not the first time you have had trouble with patches. There was
> an issue with your patch of February, 2007:
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:
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.
You are misrepresenting the situation. The discussion about the commit
timestamp, where you asked for a complete functional specification of a
multimaster replication system based on it before anything should be
done feature wise at all, was not about any CVS activity that happened.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?