"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 23:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> No, it isn't.  This is *not* a candidate for back-porting.
>> Why is that? It seems to me that the potential downside is essentially
>> zero. This is a developer-oriented benchmark tool, after all.

> To me, it is a clear line. Once we accept for one, we may accept for
> another.

It's a new feature and we don't do new features in back branches.
I don't see that that rule is any weaker for contrib than elsewhere.
(Since the buildfarm fired up, there is no longer any meaningful
difference between contrib and core as far as quality requirements
go: you break contrib, you've broken the build.)

Possibly there would be exceptional cases where we'd allow it, but
certainly not for a patch that came in over the transom and hasn't
garnered any community consensus that it is an essential thing to have.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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

Reply via email to