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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
