Re: WIN1252 encoding - backend or not?

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> OK, so what do we want the process to be?
>>
>> Basically, during Beta/Release, we should almost a policy where a third
>> party patch needs to be approved by a second committer *before* being
>> applied ... and that even applies to Tom >:) Your own patch, fine ... but
>> a third party patch, even submitted by someone who has submitted patch
>> previously, should be reviewed/approved by two committers ...

> Please find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. I don't have time
> to apply patches as it is, let alone check with someone else.

That's a fair objection, but if it means that the default is that
patches don't get applied during late beta/RC, I'm not sure I'm unhappy
with that default.

In the particular case of this patch, although Bruce said that others
had already commented on the patch, the only comments I see in the
pgpatches archives said that the patch was unreviewable because it
wasn't offered as a diff. I think it would be reasonable to insist on
at least one concurrence ("looks ok to me") posted to pgsql-patches
before applying during late beta. We've gotten into a mode where
if you like a patch you say nothing, but I wonder whether we shouldn't
change that habit.

regards, tom lane