Marko Kreen wrote: > On 10/10/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 18:35:52 -0500 > > Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 9, 2007, at 0:06 , Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I am surprised we are not backing > > > > out the patch and requiring that the patch go through the formal > > > > review > > > > process. > > > > > > I have no opinion as to the patch itself (other than the fact that > > > it's a not bug fix), but I think this patch should be reverted > > > because it's (a) after feature freeze, (b) had no discussion on > > > hackers (or patches), (c) is not a bug fix. IMO rules can be bent > > > but there should always at least be discussion before a new feature > > > is committed after feature freeze and definitely after beta. > > > Otherwise, the rule appears to be if you can get it in somehow, it's > > > in. > > > > I think this almost says it all. My particular gripe about this whole > > thing is that there are other features that are not too intrusive (or > > appear so anyway) that are easily more useful that are not being > > considered at all. Namely, > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-10/msg00087.php . It > > makes the whole process seem tilted and subjective. > > > > IMO, the patch is reverted, and submitted for 8.4 or pgfoundry. > > Yes, reverting is an option, but please, do that at least with > an understanding what actually happened. Current discussion > seems to give picture that Jan committed some private piece of > code without consulting anybody which was not the case. > > It was actually my patch that was reviewed by 2 senior PostgreSQL > developers: Jan and Tom, then later committed by Jan. I don't > think the fact that Jan was an interested party by being Slony > developer invalidates his status as PostgreSQL developer. > > Obviously that does not make skipping -hackers less mistake, > but there was no evil from anybody and the "process" for such > exceptional case was _mostly_ followed. > > Now the skipping -hackers part - that was also my mistake, > I should have Cc-d the design and code review discussion here > also. I just saw the contrib-acceptance as minor question, > the main issue was whether Slony was prepared to such a major > rewrite of its core parts on such short notice, so I wanted > to sync with them first. > > Also I think several people are annoyed by the "Jan asked permission > from -core" part of the process. But I think if you replace the > -core with "release manager" it will become more understandable. > The fact is there are only few people responsible for releases and > non-technical decisions need to be made by them. And yes, it should > have been accompanied by technical review in -hackers.
I don't think this is accurate. Jan talked to Tom, not all of core, and Tom just gave general approval. Tom still expected this to go through the hackers review process. -- 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 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
