Re: segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:42:06PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > Your colleagues achieve compliance despite uncertainty; for inspiration, I
> > recommend examining Alvaro's status updates as examples of this. The policy
> > currently governs your open items even if you disagree with it.

Thanks for resolving this open item.

> I emphatically agree with that. If the RMT is to accomplish its
> purpose, it must be able to exert authority even when an individual
> contributor doesn't like the decisions it makes.
>
> On the other hand, nothing in the open item policy the current RMT has
> adopted prohibits you from using judgement about when and how
> vigorously to enforce that policy in any particular case, and I would
> encourage you to do so.

I understand. When it comes to open item regulation, the aspects that keep me
up at night are completeness and fairness. Minimizing list traffic about
non-compliant open items is third priority at best. Furthermore, it takes an
expensive and subjective calculation to determine whether a policy-violating
open item is progressing well. I will keep an eye out for minor policy
violations that I can ignore cheaply and fairly.