On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Perhaps I shouldn't lay my own guilt trip on other committers --- but >> >> I think it would be a bad precedent to not deal with the existing patch >> >> queue first. >> > >> > +1 >> >> +1 > > I don't think we have to promise a strict priority queue and preempt all > other development. But I agree loosely that processing patches that have > been around should be a higher priority. > > I've been meaning to do more review for a while and just took a skim through > the queue. There are only a couple I feel I can contribute with so I'm going > to work on those and then if it's still before the feature freeze I would > like to go ahead with Peter's patch. I think it's generally a good patch.
To be honest, I think that's just flat-out inappropriate. There were over 100 patches in this CommitFest and there's not a single committed patch that has your name on it even as a reviewer, let alone a committer. When a committer says, hey, I'm going to commit XYZ, that basically forces anybody who might have an objection to it to drop what they're doing and object fast, before it's too late. In other words, the people who just said that they are too busy reviewing patches that were timely submitted and don't want to divert effort from that to handle patches that weren't are going to have to do that anyway, or lose their right to object. I think that's unfair. You're essentially leveraging a commit bit that you haven't used in more than three years to try to push a patch that was submitted months too late to the head of the review queue - and, just to put icing on the cake, it just so happens that you and the patch author work for the same employer. I have no objection to people committing patches written by others who work at the same company, but only if those patches have gone through a full, fair, and public review, with ample opportunity for other people to complain if they don't like it. That is obviously not the case 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
