"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If you want an example of something I *do* have a process problem
>> with, it's Kevin Grittner's attempts
> Hmmm.... Plural? I've made exactly one post on the subject since
> the CF started, unless you count review of Markus's dtester code,
> which he posted before the CF but didn't add to the CF page. Is
> reviewing that a process violation? Or was discussing it before the
> CF the process issue?
I thought the whole topic should have been held off till after the CF,
probably till after the bulk of beta testing work is done. It's a
sufficiently large and difficult problem that nobody can really give you
any meaningful feedback without taking more time away from our current
set of problems than I think is appropriate.
Now your original posts back in December were okay, since you were just
letting people know that you intended to work on this over a long
period. But IIRC you've made more than one post with actual code in it
that you seemed to be hoping people would review, and that I thought
was a distraction at this late stage of the cycle.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
