Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review

Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 18:35:52 -0500
> > Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> wrote:
> > > On Oct 9, 2007, at 0:06 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I am surprised we are not backing
> > > > out the patch and requiring that the patch go through the formal
> > > > review
> > > > process.
> > >
> > > I have no opinion as to the patch itself (other than the fact that
> > > it's a not bug fix), but I think this patch should be reverted
> > > because it's (a) after feature freeze, (b) had no discussion on
> > > hackers (or patches), (c) is not a bug fix. IMO rules can be bent
> > > but there should always at least be discussion before a new feature
> > > is committed after feature freeze and definitely after beta.
> > > Otherwise, the rule appears to be if you can get it in somehow, it's
> > > in.
> >
> > I think this almost says it all. My particular gripe about this whole
> > thing is that there are other features that are not too intrusive (or
> > appear so anyway) that are easily more useful that are not being
> > considered at all. Namely,
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-10/msg00087.php . It
> > makes the whole process seem tilted and subjective.
> >
> > IMO, the patch is reverted, and submitted for 8.4 or pgfoundry.
>
> Yes, reverting is an option, but please, do that at least with
> an understanding what actually happened. Current discussion
> seems to give picture that Jan committed some private piece of
> code without consulting anybody which was not the case.
>
> It was actually my patch that was reviewed by 2 senior PostgreSQL
> developers: Jan and Tom, then later committed by Jan. I don't
> think the fact that Jan was an interested party by being Slony
> developer invalidates his status as PostgreSQL developer.
>
> Obviously that does not make skipping -hackers less mistake,
> but there was no evil from anybody and the "process" for such
> exceptional case was _mostly_ followed.
>
> Now the skipping -hackers part - that was also my mistake,
> I should have Cc-d the design and code review discussion here
> also. I just saw the contrib-acceptance as minor question,
> the main issue was whether Slony was prepared to such a major
> rewrite of its core parts on such short notice, so I wanted
> to sync with them first.
>
> Also I think several people are annoyed by the "Jan asked permission
> from -core" part of the process. But I think if you replace the
> -core with "release manager" it will become more understandable.
> The fact is there are only few people responsible for releases and
> non-technical decisions need to be made by them. And yes, it should
> have been accompanied by technical review in -hackers.

I don't think this is accurate. Jan talked to Tom, not all of core, and
Tom just gave general approval. Tom still expected this to go through
the hackers review process.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +