On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Dimitri Fontaine wrote: >> Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi> writes: >> > The documentation has definitely improved from the last time Robert >> > looked at it, but I fear it still needs some more work. I'm willing to >> > do that work, but I need something concrete. >> >> It seems to me documentation is required to get into the source tree >> before beta, and as we see with some other patches it's definitely the >> case even with our newer procedures that some code gets in without its >> documentation properly finished. I guess this amounts to the commiter >> willing to fill up the docs later on. > > Eh? Previously we allowed code to go in with documentation to be > written after feature freeze. Is this no longer acceptable?
I don't think we usually allow that for minor features. For big things, it's probably more reasonable, but I would think that at least some effort should be put in before commit. I'm new here, though, so I might be all wet. But I wouldn't want to commit ten patches without documentation and then have someone come back and say, OK, you committed 'em, you write the docs. Or else no one comes back, and I forget, and it never gets done. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
