Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Seriously? In my opinion it has to be possible to doubt whether a patch
should be committed in certain release without it being interpreted as a
personal attack.
I don't think anyone's said anything in this thread that amounts to a
personal attack.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Basically, the same rules apply to all commitfests, i.e. a committer can
apply anything during that period. I
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Seriously? In my opinion it has to be possible to doubt whether a patch
should be committed in certain release without it being interpreted as a
personal attack.
I don't think
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Basically, the same rules apply to all commitfests, i.e. a committer can
apply anything during that period. I think the only restriction for the
last commitfest is that the
On 2015-03-18 13:12:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Indeed. In this case, since the patch in question is one that
improves/simplifies a patch that's already in the current commitfest,
I'm going to go ahead and push it. If you want to call a vote on
revoking my commit bit, go right ahead.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2015-03-18 13:12:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Indeed. In this case, since the patch in question is one that
improves/simplifies a patch that's already in the current commitfest,
I'm going to go ahead and push it.
On 2015-03-18 14:01:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Seriously? In my opinion it has to be possible to doubt whether a patch
should be committed in certain release without it being interpreted as a
personal attack.
I don't think anyone's said
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We do have a process in which even committers have to think twice about
whether it's appropriate to push something, but that's feature freeze
during alpha/beta/RC testing, and we are
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
What I was complaining about is new feature patches for 9.5 arriving
after the start of the last CF. There has to be some date after which
a patch is too late to be considered for a
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
I think the larger issue is that we have to adjust to a new-normal where
Tom isn't going to be as helpful in this area. Do we need more
committers? Do we need to adjust the process or dates? These are
probably the questions we should be addressing.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
What I was complaining about is new feature patches for 9.5 arriving
after the start of the last CF. There has to be some date after which
a patch is too late to be considered for a given release, or we will
never ship a release. We can argue about
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:28:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Or in short: yes, the rules are different for committers and non
committers. That's one of the reasons we are slow to hand out commit
bits.
I think one reason the rules are different for committers and
non-committers is that committers
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 04:21:16PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I, as a non-committer, have proposed that the rules be bent once or
twice in the past, and those suggestions were rejected without
exception, even though I
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We do have a process in which even committers have to think twice about
whether it's appropriate to push something,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 04:21:16PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I, as a non-committer, have proposed that the rules be bent once or
twice in the past, and those suggestions were rejected without
exception, even though I imagined that there was a compelling
cost/benefit ratio. I thought that
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, I reject the notion that the CF process has anything to
do with that decision. The point of the CF submission deadline is
that we promise to consider every submission made before the deadline.
It is not to
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Sorry to be coming late to this thread. I don't think the problem is
that Tom is working on these patches. Rather, I think since Tom's
employer now cares more about his current work, Tom just isn't as
available to help
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 03:06:24PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
As far as that goes, it has never been the case that we expected every
patch to go through the commitfest review process. (If we did, our
response time to bugs
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I think one valid criticism is that Tom should transition his
commitments to this new-normal, especially for the the Grouping Set
patch, rather than allowing things to dangle in an unknown state.
Well, as far as that goes, I had every intention of
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:03:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I think one valid criticism is that Tom should transition his
commitments to this new-normal, especially for the the Grouping Set
patch, rather than allowing things to dangle in an unknown
2015-03-11 0:24 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On the technical side, I do agree that the requirement to allocate and
zero an array for every new simple expression is unfortunate, but I'm
not convinced that repeatedly invoking the
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:06:24PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
What I do care about
is that we as a project have to at some point be willing to begin
closing the spigot on new patches and focusing on polishing and
shipping the patches we've already got. I think it's perfectly
reasonable to
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On the technical side, I do agree that the requirement to allocate and
zero an array for every new simple expression is unfortunate, but I'm
not convinced that repeatedly invoking the hook-function is a good way
to solve that problem. Calling the
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
From the reading the original post it seems like the patch was developed on
Sales Force's time, not TGLs. I do not think we get to have an opinion on
that.
Salesforce gets to develop their patches whenever they
On 03/09/2015 09:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Objections? Even better ideas?
I object on the grounds that we're three weeks past the deadline for
the last CommitFest, and that we should be trying to get committed
those
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Objections? Even better ideas?
I object on the grounds that we're three weeks past the deadline for
the last CommitFest, and that we should be trying to get committed
those patches that were submitted on time, not writing new
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
On 03/09/2015 09:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I object on the grounds that we're three weeks past the deadline for
the last CommitFest, and that we should be trying to get committed
those patches that were submitted on time, not writing new ones that
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
JD sees the situation correctly: this is $dayjob work, and it's going
to get done now not in four months because I have a deadline to meet.
I would like to push it into the community sources to reduce divergence
between our copy and
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
On 03/09/2015 09:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I object on the grounds that we're three weeks past the deadline for
the last CommitFest, and that we should be trying to get committed
JD sees the situation correctly: this is $dayjob work, and it's going
to get done now not in four months because I have a deadline to meet.
I would like to push it into the community sources to reduce divergence
between our copy and Salesforce's, but if I'm told it has to wait till
9.6, I
On 03/09/2015 09:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
From the reading the original post it seems like the patch was developed on
Sales Force's time, not TGLs. I do not think we get to have an opinion on
that.
Salesforce
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2015-03-09 12:54:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
If we're changing that policy for patches submitted by Salesforce
employes, I'm afraid I must object unless EnterpriseDB employees will
get the same privilege. And I
I don't think Tom, or that matter anyone needs to forgo working on changes
at any time. The only effect missing a commitfest deadline means is that
other reviewers don't offer any promises to give any feedback on it before
this round of the commitfest is done.
We don't have a policy of requiring
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I think it is ridiculous to post on the bad/good/timing of a patch
submission unless there is a case being made that the process isn't actually
being followed. I don't see that here.
The CommitFest deadline was
On 2015-03-09 12:54:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
If we're changing that policy for patches submitted by Salesforce
employes, I'm afraid I must object unless EnterpriseDB employees will
get the same privilege. And I think 2ndQuadrant will want in on it,
too.
Right. I'm not really sure how
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
JD sees the situation correctly: this is $dayjob work, and it's going
to get done now not in four months because I have a deadline to meet.
I would like to push it into the community
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I understand. I don't really have anything more to say about
this. Nothing here changes my basic feeling that we need to stop
putting new irons in the fire and start working hard on taking irons
out of the fire;
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
As far as that goes, it has never been the case that we expected every
patch to go through the commitfest review process. (If we did, our
response time to bugs would be probably a couple orders of magnitude
longer than it is.)
On 2015-03-09 13:15:59 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I must say that I share your concern here. I have no idea what's going
to happen with my ON CONFLICT patch, 9.5-wise. I hope that at least
the IGNORE variant makes it into 9.5, but I'm not sure that it will.
The ON CONFLICT IGNORE/UPDATE
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
FWIW, I think you actually don't have much reason to complain. This work
has probably gotten more attention in total than any other recent
patch. Certainly, by far, more than any other in the 9.5 cycle.
That has to be
40 matches
Mail list logo
