Re: Proposed patch for key managment
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Proposed patch for key managment |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwYhoX84Tcs7XYCuRkw=mCGrYw-qb6VuDXRij7fEUsAbug@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Proposed patch for key managment (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Proposed patch for key managment
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:44 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 09:38:55PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'll have a go at adding another keyring and/or abstracting the key
> > wrap and see how well a true peer to the passphrase approach fits in.
>
> Having patches to review and consider definitely helps, imv.
I disagree. Our order is:
Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Development_Process
so, by posting a patch, you are decided to skip the first _two_
requirements. I think it might be time for me to create a new thread
so it is not confused by whatever is posted here.
I agree with Stephen; so maybe that part of the Wiki needs to be updated instead of having it sit there for use as a hammer when someone disagrees with a proffered patch.
Or maybe consider that "a patch" doesn't only mean "implement" - it is simply another language through which desirability and design can also be communicated. The author gets to decide how wordy their prose is and choosing a wordy but concise language that is understandable by the vast majority of the target audience seems like it should be considered acceptable.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: