On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >>> For all of that, I'm not sure that people failing to seek consensus >>> before coding is really so much of a problem as you seem to think. >> >> For my part, I don't think the lack of consensus-finding before >> submitting patches is, in itself, a problem. >> >> The problem, imv, is that everyone is expecting that once they've >> written a patch and put it on a commitfest that it's going to get >> committed- and it seems like committers are feeling under pressure >> that, because something's on the CF app, it needs to be committed >> in some form. >> > > FWIW, I have NO delusions that something I propose or submit or put in > a CF is necessarily going to get committed. For me it's not committed > until I can see it in 'git log' and even then, I've seen stuff get > reverted. I would hope that if a committer isn't comfortable with a > patch they would explain why, and decline to commit. Then it's up to > the submitter as to whether or not they want to make changes, try to > explain why they are right and the committer is wrong, or withdraw the > patch.
I think that's the right attitude, but it doesn't always work out that way. Reviewers and committers sometimes spend a lot of time writing a review and then get flamed for their honest opinion about the readiness of a patch. Of course, reviewers and committers can be jerks, too. As far as I know, we're all human, here. -- 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
