On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On 07/14/2016 07:45 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/14/2016 07:11 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>
>
>>> There is a pending patch that obsoletes the patches by the vendors. That
>>> patch needs more comments (approval/rejection) before this is applied.
>>
>>
>> I pointed out that the current layout came about as a result of a lot
>> of experimentation etc. You have done nothing that I've seen to show
>
>
> Which is why the changes I made are very conservative and in fact don't
> change the organization of the pages in any way. The only thing I did was
> now take into account that we (.Org) have more than one installer to
> promote.
>
>> that your alternative patch would not cause a regression in what that
>> work achieved, and thus I strongly object to such changes. Others I've
>> spoken irl had similar concerns.
>
>
> Then let them speak here.
I am, that's why I didn't name them.
> Dave, instead of just saying , "I strongly object" why not provide some
> specific and constructive feedback? That would allow us to build a patch
> that will satisfy the community and provide a compromise for our external
> vendors that is neutral and fair?
I already did, a week or so back.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
