Jan Wieck wrote: > > I don't see how timing has anything to do with this. You could have > > added it between beta1 and beta2 after sufficient hackers discussion. > > Doing it the way you did with no warning, right before beta, and then > > leaving is the worse of all times. I am surprised we are not backing > > out the patch and requiring that the patch go through the formal review > > process. > > > > This is not the first time you have had trouble with patches. There was > > an issue with your patch of February, 2007: > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg00385.php > > That email might contain the keyword COMMIT, but it doesn't have to do > with anything I committed to CVS. The trigger changes you are referring > to have been discussed and a patch for discussion was presented here: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg00146.php
Right, but at the time you didn't want to give a good explaination and I had to ask for it. That should not have been necessary. > > (In summary, you had to be coaxed to explain your patch to the > > community.) Basically, I am not sure you understand the process that > > has to be followed, or feel you are somehow immune from following it. > > I don't see how you leap from the above example to that conclusion. You have had only a few commits in 2007, and there have been two problems. That ratio seems too high to me, hence my questions above. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend