On 10/14/2015 05:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-10-14 17:46:25 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote:
>> On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Then your argument about the CF process doesn't seem to make sense.
>
>> Why? I ask again, what do you mean by "separate process"?
>
> Not going through the CF and normal release process.
>
>> either it's in core (and follows its processes) or it isn't. But you
>> can't say you don't want it in core but that you also don't
>> want it to follow a "separate process".
>
> Oh for crying out loud. You write:
>
Andres, I'm not here looking for ways to quibble with you.
So, please "assume good faith".
>> 4) You can't easily extend the checks performed, without forking
>> postgres or going through the (lengthy, rigorous) cf process.
>
> and
>
>>> I don't think we as a community want to do that without review
>>> mechanisms in place, and I personally don't think we want to add
>>> separate processes for this.
>
>> That's what "contribute" means in my book.
>
> I don't see how those two statements don't conflict.
>
Right.
I was saying that "contribute" always implies review before acceptance,
responding to the first half of your sentence. The second half
assumes it makes sense to discuss "review process" as a separate issue
from inclusion in core. It does not make sense, and I said so.
If you have a bone to pick with my comment about CF review being
lengthy, the points was that an independent tool can move more
quickly to accept submissions because:
1. there's less at stake
2. if it's written in a higher level language, enhancements
are easier.
Those don't hold when adding another check involves changes to the
`postgres` binary.
Fair?
Amir
