On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 01:27:34PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:50 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
>
> > So you are saying you don't think you are getting sufficient thought
> > into your proposal, and getting just a reflex? Just because we don't
> > agree with you don't mean we didn't think about it. In fact, we have
> > thought about it a lot, which is evident from the URL I sent you
> > already.
>
>
> I am mostly trying to say that I don't think the issues I raised were actually
> addressed in the proposed alternatives. I put in a fair bit of effort to
> clearly set out the problem that this is meant to solve, and was frustrated to
> perceive the response as "yeah, nah, lets just do this other thing that only
> addresses one part of the original issue." It wasn't clear why my proposal
> appeared to be being rejected. Perhaps I didn't fully grasp the context of the
> linked discussion.
I think the big problem, and I have seen this repeatedly, is showing up
with a patch without discussing whether people actually want the
feature. I know it is a doc issue, but our TODO list has the order as:
Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit
and there is a reason for that. When you appear with a patch, you are
already far down the steps, and you have to back up to explain why it is
useful.
Clearly we have need for documenting these renamings somewhere. We were
going to go with a simple URL redirect and a "tip" for
default/pre-installed roles, but I like the idea of doing something more
wholistic that covers all of our recent renaming cases. Let's get
buy-in from that, and then someone can work on a patch.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
