On 09/22/2014 04:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I have no reason to doubt your version of events here (although > Stephen may wish to address what you've said - I'm basing that on his > tone elsewhere). I must ask, though: what do you propose to do about > it in this instance? He has been chastised. Would you like to make a > point of formalizing what are (if I'm not mistaken) currently defacto > rules? Should RLS be reverted, and revisited in a future CF?
The CommitFests were never meant to restrict when a committer could commit a patch. The point of the CFs was to give committers time *off* from committing patches. If a committer wants to commit something completely outside of the CF process, they are welcome to, as long as it receives adequate review. So if there's an argument here, it's whether or not the committed RLS patch was adequately reviewed (and if not, if it should be reverted), not whether it should have been in the CF or not. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
