On 11/7/18 7:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:22 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> But maybe you've adopted that policy already. You back-patched a
>>> behavior change 2 days before a minor release when the vote was 2-3
>>> against the change.
>>
>> It was? This is my count:
>> For: Alvaro, Andrew, Tom
>> Against: Michael, Robert, Andres
>
> Tom's message was posted after you had already committed it. His
> vote counts from the point of view of determining retrospectively
> whether your action had support, but you can't use it to justify the
> decision to push the commit when you did, unless you used a time
> machine to foresee his message before he posted it.
>
Yeah. I think the change is OK from technical POV - it essentially fixes
behavior that is useless/surprising and would just result in raised
eyebrows and bogus bug reports. No problems here.
But the consensus probably was not there when it got pushed ...
>> Also, I contested every point that was raised about this patch. I
>> don't think there were any remaining technical objections.
>
> Sure, but I don't think the standard is whether you told people that
> they were wrong. I think the standard is whether you convinced them
> to revise their position. You sure haven't convinced me.
>
Yeah. While I think the objections were wrong, and Alvaro explained that
pretty well in his response, there should have been more time for the
OPs to respond before pushing the change. That's not great.
FWIW, it was mentioned that "your only concurring vote came from someone
with whom you share an employer" which kind suggests opinions/votes from
people working for the same company are somehow less honest/valuable. I
find that annoying and even insulting, because it kinda hints the
company (or companies) are pushing people to respond differently than
they would otherwise. Which I find rather insulting.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
