On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2014-09-22 21:38:17 -0700, David G Johnston wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote > > > It's difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of process than > > > committing a patch without any warning and without even *commenting* > > > on the fact that clear objections to commit were made on a public > > > mailing list. If that is allowed to stand, what can we assume other > > > than that Stephen, at least, has a blank check to change anything he > > > wants, any time he wants, with no veto possible from anyone else? > > > > I'm of a mind to agree that this shouldn't have been committed...but I'm > not > > seeing where Stephen has done sufficient wrong to justify crucifixion. > > I've not seen much in the way of 'crucifixion' before this email. And I > explicitly *don't* think it's warranted. Also it's not happening. > > I maybe got a little carried away with my hyperbole... > > At this point my hindsight says a strictly declaratory statement of > "reasons > > this is not ready" combined with reverting the patch would have been > > sufficient; or even just a "I am going to revert this for these reasons" > > post. The difference between building support for a revert and > gathering a > > mob is a pretty thin line. > > The reason it's being discussed is to find a way to align the different > views about when to commit stuff. The primary goal is *not* to revert > the commit or anything but to make sure we're not slipping into > procedures we all would regret. Which *really* can happen very > easily. We're all humans and most of us have more than enough to do. > So, the second option then...and I'm sorry but "this should never have been committed" tends to cause one to think it should therefore be reverted. > > Though I guess if you indeed feel that his actions were truly heinous you > > should also then put forth the proposal that his ability to commit be > > revoked. > > I think *you* are escalating this to something unwarranted here by the > way you're painting the discussion. > Not everyone who reads -hackers knows all the people involved personally. I had an initial reaction to these e-mails that I thought I would share, nothing more. I'm not going to quote the different comments that led me to my feeling that the response to this was disproportionate to the offense but after a first pass - which is all many people would do - that is what I came away with. Though you could say I fell into the very same trap by reacting off my first impression... David J.
