Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 05:37:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [ shrug... ] Andrew had unilaterally removed me as committer from that
>> patch back in January or so, so it dropped way down my priority list.
>> I'm willing to move it back up now, but I could do without people
>> expressing a sense of entitlement to my time. In any case, Andres is
> I am trying not to express any entitlement. I do have a problem with
> people claiming things that block others.
Well, I was and remain concerned that the patch would do a great deal of
violence to basic system structure. If I'd had adequate time to work on
it I would have attempted to fix it, but I have not had that kind of time.
In the meantime, the patch was not claimed and I was not particularly
blocking anyone else from claiming it. Plenty of stuff gets committed
around here without my blessing.
>> currently the committer of record, and if he decides to push it in the
>> next 24 hours, I'm not doing anything more to stand in his way than
>> Robert already did.
> Uh, did Robert delay work on the patch in any way?
I was merely agreeing with the concerns Robert expressed in
<CA+TgmoZt0Q=Odx-pL+9Zc6Qyf1A5_2hMBWgaEUdoWgW=JveP6Q@mail.gmail.com>
that we'd do well to avoid committing any more large-and-not-quite-
fully-baked patches at this point. If Andres decides it's baked enough,
that's his responsibility and prerogative as a committer.
> True, but I have problems with leaders acting in a way that is unfair to
> those with less power. Have you considered how demoralizing it is to
> work in an unfair environment? Unfairness happens, but as leaders, we
> are supposed to try to avoid it, not cause it.
TBH, every time somebody beats me up about not having dropped everything
else to spend a month on this patch, it just makes me want to back away
further. I haven't had the time, and I really could do without
accusations of that being unfair.
regards, tom lane
