Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Devrim G?ND?Z wrote: > > What we should to do is to prevent such things happening in the future, > > rather than reverting this patch and delaying replication issues. > > > > > > > > The next time the same sort of argument will be made. The way to prevent > it in future is not to allow it now. > > One of the things that people seem to fail to appreciate is that it > really looks very bad for us when an insider does this. The message we > send to non-insiders is just dreadful. If we want to encourage people to > participate in development then we should all play by the same rules. > One of the things I have found most attractive about the PostgreSQL > community, quite apart from the technical excellence of our product, is > the community's openness, fairness and egalitarianism. And I know I'm > not alone in that. We should guard those qualities jealously.
Andrew is right that the appearance here is the biggest problem, and I already emailed that to Jan privately. -- 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 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
