"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ya know, I'm sitting back and reading this, and other threads, and > assimilating what is being bantered about, and start to think that > its time to cut back on the gatekeepers ...
On the contrary, the quality of code accepted into a DBMS is really important. If you disagree with the definition of "code quality" that some developers are employing, then we can discuss that -- but I think that as the project matures, we should be more picky about the features we implement, not less. > Thomas implemented an option that he felt was useful, and that > doesn't break anything inside of the code The problem with this line of thinking is that "it doesn't break stuff" is not sufficient reason for adding a new feature. The burden of proof is on the person implementing the new feature. > ... he provided 2 methods of being able to move the xlog's to > another location Yes, but why do we need 2 different ways to do exactly the same thing? > but, because a small number of ppl "voted" that it should go away, > it went away ... They didn't just vote, they provided reasons why they thought the feature was brain-damaged -- reasons which have not be persuasively refuted, IMHO. If you'd like to see this feature in the code, might I suggest that you spend less time complaining about "gate keepers" (hint: it's called code review), and more time explaining exactly why the feature is worth having? Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
