Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review

On 10/9/2007 5:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> 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
>> >> > 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
>> > 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.
> 
> Here is a quote of exactly what I had to ask for, which I shouldn't have
> had to ask for:
> 
>     What I did want to hear is a layout of how the system would work,
>     and an exchange of ideas until almost everyone was happy.
> 
>     Also, I saw the trigger patch with no explaination of why it was
>     important or who would use it --- that also isn't going to fly
>     well.
> 
>     So, to add something, the community needs to hear how it is going to
>     help users, because every code addition has cost, and we don't want to
>     add things unless it has general utility.  If someone can't explain the
>     utility of an addition, I question whether the person has fully thought
>     through were they are going.
> 
> Not sure where you got the "complete functional specification of a
> multimaster replication system".
> 
> I go back to my original question, do you understand the process that
> has to be followed for patch submission/application, and that it applies
> to all of us, including you?   A simple "yes" is all I need to hear.
> 

Yes, Sir.


Jan

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