On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 04:21:16PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> I, as a non-committer, have proposed that the rules be bent once or >> twice in the past, and those suggestions were rejected without >> exception, even though I imagined that there was a compelling >> cost/benefit ratio. I thought that was fine. I always assumed that I >> had the same right to suggest something as a committer. The only >> fundamental difference was that I had to convince a committer that my >> assessment was correct, rather than simply avoiding having the >> suggestion be vetoed. I'd need to do both. Clearly my previous >> understanding of this was questionable, to say the least. > > Basically, the same rules apply to all commitfests, i.e. a committer can > apply anything during that period. I think the only restriction for the > last commitfest is that the committer can not apply a new patch that > would have been too big to be submitted to the last commitfest. If > enough people feel that this committer behavior during the last > commitfest is a problem, we can discuss changing that policy.
One thing that's crystal clear here is that we don't all agree on what the policy actually is. -- 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
