Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > There are a fair number of things in the TODO list that you put there
> > > because you liked 'em, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees.
> > > I certainly will not accept "once it's on the TODO list it cannot be
> > > questioned"...
> >
> > I put it there because I didn't think there was any question.
>
> Honetsly I don't understand what TODO means.
> Can a developer solve the TODOs any way he likes ?
I meant to say there was no question we wanted this item fixed, not that
there was no need for implementation discussions.
In summary, code changes have three stages:
o Do we want this feature?
o How do we want the feature to behave?
o How do we want the feature implemented?
Tom was complaining because the patch appeared without enough discussion
on these items. However, from my perspective, this is really trying to
micromanage the process. When people post patches, we aren't forced to
apply them. If people want to code things up and just send them in and
then are willing to get into a discussion to make sure all our questions
listed above are dealt with, that is fine with me.
To think that everyone is going to follow the process of going through
those three stages before submitting a patch isn't realistic. I think
we have to be a little flexible and work with these submitters so their
involvment in the project is both positive for them and positive for the
project. Doing discussion sometimes in a backward order is sometimes
required to accomplish this.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
