Robert Haas wrote: > I actually think that the phrase "this has been discussed before and > rejected" should be permanently removed from our list of excuses for > rejecting a patch. Or if we must use that excuse, then I think a link > to the relevant discussion is a must, and the relevant discussion had > better reflect the fact that $TOPIC was in fact rejected. It seems to > me that in at least 50% of cases, someone comes back and says one of > the following things: > > 1. I searched the archives and could find no discussion along those lines. > 2. I read that discussion and it doesn't appear to me that it reflects > a rejection of this idea. Instead what people seemed to be saying was > X. > 3. At the time that might have been true, but what has changed in the > meanwhile is X.
Agreed. Perhaps we need an anti-TODO that lists things we don't want in more detail. The TODO has that for a few items, but scaling things up there will be cumbersome. I agree that having the person saying it was rejected find the email discussion is ideal --- if they can't find it, odds are the patch person will not be able to find it either. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
