On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 26 September 2014 08:48, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> > wrote: >> But in many cases, lack of good documentation makes even reviewing the patch >> difficult. How do you determine if the patch works as intended, if you don't >> know what it's supposed to do? > > Exactly. > > Lack of review and lack of consensus are often caused by the author > not making the patch fully and genuinely accessible to peer review. > Don't say you're having problems getting buy in when you've done very > little to encourage that. Committing early is not the solution.
That is quite true. Furthermore, in this particular case, I had already put a lot of effort into reviewing the patch and had expressed a clear intention to put in more. If the worst that happens is that the patch has a few bugs, no great harm will have been done by committing it. Things get a lot more thorny if there are still design-level issues. I think we made a lot of progress on those issues in previous rounds of review, but I'm not sure we squashed them all, and I didn't appreciate having that process short-circuited. -- 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
