On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> > I just wanted to correct the apparent impression that "patches don't
> > get ignored here". Patches get ignored. The difference between us
> > and Apache is we pretend it doesn't happen and don't suggest to
> > submitters what action to take when it does. Which puts Apache ahead
> > of us IMO.
>
> Uh, no, there is a difference between "not acted on instantly" and
> "never acted on at all". The Apache docs that were quoted upthread
> suggested that they might allow things to fall through the cracks
> indefinitely without repeat prodding. That might be (in fact very
> likely is) an unfair assessment of their real response habits.
> But you are claiming that not getting to a patch right away is as
> bad as never getting to it at all. I beg to disagree.
>
Not really. I'm claiming that, to the submitter, a response that
hasn't happened yet and a response that is never coming look pretty
much identical.
Cheers,
BJ
