On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> I think it'd be a different discussion if this where CF-1 or so. But >> we're nearly *2* months after the the *end* of the last CF. > > There wouldn't be any discussion if it was CF-1 as I doubt anyone would > object to it going in (or at least not as strongly..), even if it was > submitted after CF-1 was supposed to be over with remaining patches. > It's the threat of getting punted to the next release that really makes > the difference here, imv.
The point is that if this had been submitted for CF-1, CF-2, CF-3, or CF-4, and I had concerns about it (which I do), then I would have budgeted time to record those concerns so that they could be discussed and, if necessary, addressed. Since it wasn't, I assumed I didn't need to worry about studying the patch, figuring out which of my concerns were actually legitimate, searching for other areas of potential concern, and putting together a nice write-up until June - and maybe not even then, because at that point other people might also be studying the patch and might cover those areas in sufficient detail as to obviate my own concerns. -- 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
