On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 01:06:11AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > On 10/8/2007 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > >> Marko Kreen wrote:
> > >>> Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
> > >>> whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
> > >>> my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have
> > >>> their own opinion.
> > >
> > >> Right. I can see your point, but it's my understanding that
> > >> -hackers is really the ones supposed to decide on this.
> > >
> > > It would ultimately have been core's decision, but the
> > > discussion should have happened on -hackers. There was no
> > > reason for it to be private.
> >
> > That blame certainly belongs to me and I apologize for jumping
> > that and adding it to contrib without any -hackers discussion.
> >
> > It is definitely a timing issue since I write this very email from
> > JFK, boarding a flight to Hong Kong in less than an hour and will
> > be mostly offline for the rest of the week.
>
> 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.
The feature is great, and it should stay on pgfoundry or other
suitable place until the 8.4 development cycle. I believe it would
make a great addition to the core product, but only in 8.4.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
