On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/28927.1236820...@sss.pgh.pa.us >> >> That's not a positive review, but when it comes down to it, it's a >> pretty factual email. IMHO, anyway, and YMMV. > > Really? I've always thought that was a pretty constructive review. It > certainly gave me the laundry list of things I'd have to fix to ever get > that change in, and how what looked like a simple patch is actually > fairly complicated.
I agree that it was constructive, but it wasn't exactly endorsing the concept you put forward, so it was not a positive, aka favorable, review. Also, you did put it on a T-shirt. :-) >> My own experience is different from yours, I guess. I actually like >> it when I post a patch, or suggest a concept, and Tom fires back with >> a laundry list of reasons it won't work. > > This can be a problem with new submitters, though. If you're not used > to the current community dialog, that email can be taken as "your idea > is stupid because" rather than what it actually means, which is "fix > these issues and resubmit, please". That's often not clearly > communicated, and is important with new submitters. Yep. Even long-time participants in the process sometimes get demoralized. It's always fun to be the smartest guy in the room, and one rarely gets that luxury with any regularity on pgsql-hackers. >> It often induces me to step >> back and approach the same problem from a different and better angle, >> and the result is often better for it. What I don't like is when I >> (or anyone) posts a patch and somebody says something that boils down >> to "no one wants that". *That* ticks me off. Because you know what? >> At a minimum, *I* want that. If I didn't, I wouldn't have written a >> patch. And usually, the customers I support want that, too. Now, >> somebody else may not want it, and that is fine. But IMHO, posting a >> patch should be considered prima facie evidence of non-zero demand for >> the associated feature. > > On the other hand, saying "this patch has potential side effects / > peformance penalty / makes admin more complex / has a lot of code to > maintain. How common is the use-case you're talking about?" is legit. > Features which impose a "cost" on people who don't use them need to be > justified as "useful enough" to be worth the cost. Totally agreed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers