Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 10/8/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:32:19PM +0000, Jan Wieck wrote:
>>> Log Message:
>>> -----------
>>> Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as discussed
>>> on CORE previously.
>
> To explain the situation, the public discussion about the current
> submission happened here:
>
> http://lists.pgfoundry.org/pipermail/skytools-users/2007-September/000245.html
>
> and here:
>
> http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-hackers/2007-September/000057.html
Ok. That certainly explains it - it did sound weird to have that go in
without any public discussion at all - but none of those lists are
pgsql-hackers ;-)
> And ofcourse, the original submission was at 2006-07 to _8.2_:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00157.php
Ah. I only searched for this year, since I only considered submissions
for 8.3. But still, it wasn't AFAIK on any of the patch lists etc.
> It was rejected then mostly on 3 reasons (from my POV):
>
> - it was messy and contained unnecesary cruft.
> - it was submitted to core not /contrib
> - slony was not interested in it at that moment
>
> Now as you can read from recent disussion we had, we found out
> that it would be *really* *really* cool if it would appear
> in 8.3... Talk about last moment...
Well, if it's really really cool to have, why do we put it in /contrib?
If it's that cool, it should be in core, no?
That's not just making comments, I really *do* think that it should be
in core if it's interesting enough to be added to contrib at this time.
> 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.
//Magnus
