Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review

On 10/9/2007 1:06 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> On 10/8/2007 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> >> Marko Kreen wrote:
>> >>> Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
>> >>> whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
>> >>> my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have
>> >>> their own opinion.
>> >
>> >> Right. I can see your point, but it's my understanding that -hackers is
>> >> really the ones supposed to decide on this.
>> >
>> > It would ultimately have been core's decision, but the discussion should
>> > have happened on -hackers. There was no reason for it to be private.
>>
>> That blame certainly belongs to me and I apologize for jumping that and
>> adding it to contrib without any -hackers discussion.
>>
>> It is definitely a timing issue since I write this very email from JFK,
>> boarding a flight to Hong Kong in less than an hour and will be mostly
>> offline for the rest of the week.
>
> I don't see how timing has anything to do with this. You could have
> added it between beta1 and beta2 after sufficient hackers discussion.
> Doing it the way you did with no warning, right before beta, and then
> leaving is the worse of all times. I am surprised we are not backing
> out the patch and requiring that the patch go through the formal review
> process.
>
> This is not the first time you have had trouble with patches. There was
> an issue with your patch of February, 2007:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg00385.php

That email might contain the keyword COMMIT, but it doesn't have to do
with anything I committed to CVS. The trigger changes you are referring
to have been discussed and a patch for discussion was presented here:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg00146.php

> (In summary, you had to be coaxed to explain your patch to the
> community.) Basically, I am not sure you understand the process that
> has to be followed, or feel you are somehow immune from following it.

I don't see how you leap from the above example to that conclusion.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #