Re: Where to load modules from?
От | Marko Tiikkaja |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Where to load modules from? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5235CC2E.4090503@joh.to обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Where to load modules from? (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Where to load modules from?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-15 16:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Sun, 2013-09-15 at 16:09 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: >> My understanding is that a Commit Fest is mainly about Reviewing, that's >> why I still added an entry for two designs that I need feedback on >> before actually coding a solution. >> >> Writing the code is the easiest part of those proposals, but that's only >> true as soon as we decide what code we should be writing. > > I understand why using the commit fest process is attractive for this, > because it enables you to force the issue. But the point of the commit > fest is to highlight patches whose discussion has mostly concluded and > get them committed. If we add general discussion to the commit fest, > it'll just become a mirror of the mailing list, and then we'll need yet > another level of process to isolate the ready patches from that. I have one item like this in the current commit fest. I wrote a PoC patch, but that's just a bad excuse to get around the issue that we don't really want just RFCs on there. The problem is when you post an idea requesting comments on -HACKERS, and nobody or only one person answers despite efforts to try and keep the discussion alive and/or revive it. What should one do in that case? Writing a patch just to throw it away later becausesomething's fundamentally broken (or unnacceptable) seems silly if people could have just looked at the original -HACKERS post and said "this can't possibly work with your current design". Regards, Marko Tiikkaja
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: