Re: RLS feature has been committed

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David Johnston
Тема Re: RLS feature has been committed
Дата
Msg-id CAKFQuwahwpaQMP5PL3ey+jur1nSBaCAg8Hh7EUtJ=o+v0vcK=A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: RLS feature has been committed  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2014-09-22 21:38:17 -0700, David G Johnston wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote
> > It's difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of process than
> > committing a patch without any warning and without even *commenting*
> > on the fact that clear objections to commit were made on a public
> > mailing list.  If that is allowed to stand, what can we assume other
> > than that Stephen, at least, has a blank check to change anything he
> > wants, any time he wants, with no veto possible from anyone else?
>
> 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.

I've not seen much in the way of 'crucifixion' before this email. And I
explicitly *don't* think it's warranted. Also it's not happening.


I maybe got a little carried​ away with my hyperbole...

 
> At this point my hindsight says a strictly declaratory statement of "reasons
> this is not ready" combined with reverting the patch would have been
> sufficient; or even just a "I am going to revert this for these reasons"
> post.  The difference between building support for a revert and gathering a
> mob is a pretty thin line.

The reason it's being discussed is to find a way to align the different
views about when to commit stuff. The primary goal is *not* to revert
the commit or anything but to make sure we're not slipping into
procedures we all would regret. Which *really* can happen very
easily. We're all humans and most of us have more than enough to do.

​So, the second option then...​and I'm sorry but "this should never have been committed" tends to cause one to think it should therefore be reverted.


> Though I guess if you indeed feel that his actions were truly heinous you
> should also then put forth the proposal that his ability to commit be
> revoked.

I think *you* are escalating this to something unwarranted here by the
way you're painting the discussion.

​Not everyone who reads -hackers knows all the people involved personally.  I had an initial reaction to these e-mails that I thought I would share, nothing more.  I'm not going to quote the different comments that led me to my feeling that the response to this was disproportionate to the offense but after a first pass - which is all many people would do - that is what I came away with.  Though you could say I fell into the very same trap by reacting off my first impression...

David J.

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Fabien COELHO
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: add modulo (%) operator to pgbench
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: tick buildfarm failure