On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:38 AM, David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm of a mind to agree that this shouldn't have been committed...but I'm not > seeing where Stephen has done sufficient wrong to justify crucifixion. > Especially since everything is being done publicly and you are one of the > many people in the position to flex a veto by reverting the patch.
I'd be interested to see what the reaction would be if I reverted this patch out of the blue. I suspect it would not be positive. More generally, I don't want the PostgreSQL source code repository to ground zero for a revert war.
OK, so the actually pulling-the-trigger doesn't have to occur (though it can if warranted but obviously usually this particular procedure is sufficiently slow that the need for immediate action would be rare) but framing the argument in that context focuses the attention on the patch itself not being ready and moves it away from the personal aspects of why it was committed in the first place.
> Subsequent, possibly private, discussion between you and Stephen could then > occur before making any conclusions you form public so that others can learn > from the experience and ponder whether anything could be changed to mitigate > such situations in the future.
I'd be happy to discuss this with Stephen, either in person, by phone, or over public or private email. Unfortunately, although he's posted many other emails to this list over the last couple of days, he hasn't chosen to respond, publicly or privately, to my statement that he must have read the email in which I asked him to hold off committing (because he addressed technical feedback from that same email) and that he went ahead and did it anyway.
Not checking timeline here but Stephen has said he was in the wrong and that the reasons would be better discussed at the pub (i.e., offline). Is a more vocal public admission of guilt the important thing here?