I suggest we focus on the engineering. I've not discussed this patch with Pavan offline.
On 23 March 2018 at 23:32, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:06:48AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Your assumption that I would commit a new patch that was 29 mins old >> is frankly pretty ridiculous, so yes, lets keep calm. > > When a committer says that a patch is "ready for commit" and that he > calls for "last objections", I am understanding that you would be ready > to commit the patch from the moment such an email has been sent. Am I > the only one to think so? Now let's look at the numbers: > - The last patch sent is a v2, which implements a completely new > approach compared to v1. This is a non-trivial patch which touches > sensitive parts of the code. > - v2 has been sent exactly two weeks after the last email exchanged on > this thread. > - Per the data publicly available, it took less than 30 minutes to > review the patch, and there are zero comments about its contents. > I do patch review on a more-or-less daily basis, and look at threads on > hackers on a daily basis, but I really rarely see such an "efficient" > review pattern. You and Pavan have likely discussed the patch offline, > but nobody can guess what has been discussed and what have been the > arguments exchanged. > >> Enjoy your weekend and I'll be happy to read your review on Monday. > > Er. So this basically means that I need to do a commitment to look at > this patch in such a short time frame? If you are asking for reviews, > doing such requests by asking a proper question rather than by implying > it in an affirmation would seem more adapted to me, so this email bit is > making me uncomfortable. My apologies if I am not able to catch the > nuance in those words. > -- > Michael -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
