Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review

On 10/10/2007 12:05 AM, Shane Ambler wrote:
> Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 16:50 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> IMO, the patch is reverted, and submitted for 8.4 or pgfoundry.
>>
>> You know, txid was discussed in Slony-I + Skytools lists for a
>> reasonably long time, and Tom also commented in that thread. I agree
>> that we broke the policy this time, but this does not mean the end of
>> the world.
>
> If it has been discussed and planned for so long then it should have
> been considered for inclusion earlier, not just slipped under the radar.
> Even if at feature freeze it wasn't ready it could have been discussed
> whether it could be added after feature freeze if it reached an
> acceptable standard.
>
> If Slony or Skytools need this for a new feature in their x.y release
> then it can be a patch that is included with their release or be a
> prerequisite for their version x.y and detailed in their install steps.

There was no intend to "slip it in under the radar". Discussion had
happened and I failed to realize at the time the code actually looked
good that the discussion had happened somewhere other than -hackers.

I can certainly take a good amount of flak, especially considering that
there was a fault on my side. But what is going on right now here is
getting annoying.

Also Slony doesn't need this module. We can certainly wait until we are
forced by other reasons to bump Slony to version 3.0, declare 3.0
incompatible with 8.3 and switch to using txid then. Slony can continue
using its own xxid data type until then. No problem here.

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 #