On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > While it seems like this particular patch (with myself as committer) > would meet the requirements stated by the RMT for an extension, having > considered it over the past day or so, I don't think we should make it a > policy to allow an extension when it involves a significant rework of > the patch, as is the case here.
I agree. To be clear, those were intended as necessary but not necessarily sufficient reasons for extension. I agree that patches needing significant reworking are not good candidates for extensions. (But that is my feeling as an RMT member, not an RMT official policy upon which we have voted.) -- 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
