Re: RLS feature has been committed

On 2014-09-22 21:38:17 -0700, David G Johnston wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote
> > It's difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of process than
> > committing a patch without any warning and without even *commenting*
> > on the fact that clear objections to commit were made on a public
> > mailing list. If that is allowed to stand, what can we assume other
> > than that Stephen, at least, has a blank check to change anything he
> > wants, any time he wants, with no veto possible from anyone else?
>
> I'm of a mind to agree that this shouldn't have been committed...but I'm not
> seeing where Stephen has done sufficient wrong to justify crucifixion.

I've not seen much in the way of 'crucifixion' before this email. And I
explicitly *don't* think it's warranted. Also it's not happening.

> At this point my hindsight says a strictly declaratory statement of "reasons
> this is not ready" combined with reverting the patch would have been
> sufficient; or even just a "I am going to revert this for these reasons"
> post. The difference between building support for a revert and gathering a
> mob is a pretty thin line.

The reason it's being discussed is to find a way to align the different
views about when to commit stuff. The primary goal is *not* to revert
the commit or anything but to make sure we're not slipping into
procedures we all would regret. Which *really* can happen very
easily. We're all humans and most of us have more than enough to do.

> Though I guess if you indeed feel that his actions were truly heinous you
> should also then put forth the proposal that his ability to commit be
> revoked.

I think *you* are escalating this to something unwarranted here by the
way you're painting the discussion.

> If your not willing to go to that extent then, unless you know
> Stephen personally, I'd not assume that public flogging is the best way to
> get him to not mess up in the future; but the honest and cordial dialog
> about cause/effect is likely to be more productive and less
> self-destructing. Though, to each their own style.

All the people involved know Stephen personally. There's also no "public
flogging".

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services