Re: hot standby - merged up to CVS HEAD

On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 13:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure why you're stirring this up again.
> >

> You stated:
>
> - It's going to be very confusing if people submit their own versions of
> - it. So now we have mine, Heikki's and Robert's. I'd like this to stop
> - please, have a little faith and a little patience. Presumably Robert's
> - rebasing patch is best place to start from now for later work.
>
> I assume your last sentence is saying exactly that Robert's version
> should be used as the most current reprsentation of this feature patch.

That isn't what I meant then and isn't what I think now: that patch is
not verified.

The reason for my objection was that accepting patches had already
caused significant setbacks on this complex patch. I won't be ignoring
Robert's work, which would be petty, but I won't be picking it up
wholesale either, nor will I be providing a review of it. Nor Heikki's,
nor anyone elses.

I am moving forward the parts of the patch that I consider worth
submitting. I need to be happy with every single line of code before I
submit it; it's too easy to make a mistake otherwise. I'm not going to
submit something that I can't verify, any more than I would expect any
committer to commit code they can't verify either. The current dev team
(Simon, Gianni, Gabriele) only has time to spend on testing one patch,
not various ones. I do hope to receive comments from reviewers and will
include consensus changes into the code. And as I mentioned elsewhere,
there are still changes/features to add to the code itself.

As you point out, people can do anything they want with submitted code,
so they may make any judgement they wish about that patch. If anybody
thinks any good will come from ignoring the opinion of the original
author, go right ahead.

> The bottom line is that you think you have ownership of the patch and
> the feature --- you do not.
>
> You are right you don't have to justify anything, but neither can you
> claim ownership of the patch/feature and complain that others are
> working on it too. This is a community project --- if you want your
> patches to remain your property, I suggest you no longer post them to
> our community lists. If you are actively working on patches, I assume
> others will not duplicate your work, but if you are idle, others are
> encouraged to keep improving the patch. Again, if you don't like
> that,
> then perhaps the community-development process isn't for you.

I've *never* spoken of code or feature ownership. But this is a
community project and I can request teamwork from other contributors,
which is what I did.

I've said very clearly that I am working on this and it's fairly
laughable to suggest that anybody thought I wasn't. What more should I
do to prove something is "active" if you won't accept my clearly spoken
word? How did you decide I was idle exactly?

I'll make sure to do regular blogs on what I'm working on.

I have no problem with Robert. I have no problem with Robert completing
my inactive patches - he is doing exactly that with join removal and I
haven't uttered a word. If I felt as you think I do, then surely I would
have objected to both. Yet I have only objected on the one patch that
I've said clearly I'm working on, with specific reasons. If Robert
hadn't been present when I said it, I might have reacted differently.

To everybody and anybody: please don't submit alternative versions of a
patch that other hackers have said they are working on, and don't have
conversations about those projects on diverse threads. That's not a
claim of code or feature ownership, it's just common sense teamwork on
an important development project.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com