On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 26 September 2014 08:48, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>> But in many cases, lack of good documentation makes even reviewing the patch
>> difficult. How do you determine if the patch works as intended, if you don't
>> know what it's supposed to do?
>
> Exactly.
>
> Lack of review and lack of consensus are often caused by the author
> not making the patch fully and genuinely accessible to peer review.
> Don't say you're having problems getting buy in when you've done very
> little to encourage that. Committing early is not the solution.
That is quite true.
Furthermore, in this particular case, I had already put a lot of
effort into reviewing the patch and had expressed a clear intention to
put in more. If the worst that happens is that the patch has a few
bugs, no great harm will have been done by committing it. Things get
a lot more thorny if there are still design-level issues. I think we
made a lot of progress on those issues in previous rounds of review,
but I'm not sure we squashed them all, and I didn't appreciate having
that process short-circuited.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
