"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
>>> Maybe it's just me, but I'm struggling to understand current
>>> community processes and decisions.
>> Well, I've already spent a fair amount of time trying to explain
>> my understanding of it, and for my trouble I got accused of being
>> long-winded. Which is probably true, but makes me think I should
>> probably keep this response short. I'm not unwilling to talk
>> about it, though, and perhaps someone else would like to chime in.
> I rather liked the brief comment in a recent post of yours where you
> said that at this point we should only be accepting patches which
> stabilize what has already been committed, rather than new features
> which might require further stabilization.
Quite. While we're on the subject, why did that int->money patch get
committed so quickly? I had assumed that was 9.2 material, because it
didn't seem to be addressing any new-in-9.1 issue. I'm not going to ask
for it to be backed out, but I am wondering what the decision process
was.
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
