On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I just wanted to correct the apparent impression that "patches don't > > get ignored here". Patches get ignored. The difference between us > > and Apache is we pretend it doesn't happen and don't suggest to > > submitters what action to take when it does. Which puts Apache ahead > > of us IMO. > > Uh, no, there is a difference between "not acted on instantly" and > "never acted on at all". The Apache docs that were quoted upthread > suggested that they might allow things to fall through the cracks > indefinitely without repeat prodding. That might be (in fact very > likely is) an unfair assessment of their real response habits. > But you are claiming that not getting to a patch right away is as > bad as never getting to it at all. I beg to disagree. >
Not really. I'm claiming that, to the submitter, a response that hasn't happened yet and a response that is never coming look pretty much identical. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
