Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review

On 10/9/2007 1:06 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> On 10/8/2007 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> >> Marko Kreen wrote:
>> >>> 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.
>> > 
>> > It would ultimately have been core's decision, but the discussion should
>> > have happened on -hackers.  There was no reason for it to be private.
>> 
>> That blame certainly belongs to me and I apologize for jumping that and 
>> adding it to contrib without any -hackers discussion.
>> 
>> It is definitely a timing issue since I write this very email from JFK, 
>> boarding a flight to Hong Kong in less than an hour and will be mostly 
>> offline for the rest of the week.
> 
> 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


> (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.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #