On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > 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.
Agreed. > 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. The point here is precisely that nobody other than the authors reviewed it, and that I specifically asked Stephen to hold off commit until the next CommitFest because I did not want to drop everything to review a patch that was posted mid-CommitFest over other patches that were timely submitted. Stephen took the technical content that appeared in that same email, incorporated into the patch, and committed it shortly thereafter. -- 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
