Re: release management team statement on patch reverts

On 05/04/2016 12:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> The PostgreSQL 9.6 release management team has determined that there
>> is insufficient consensus at this time to revert any of the patches
>> mentioned in http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYOWTtBQEL+Bv=w93bvUjbXSUw3uGnp+R29dduZ==8K0Q@mail.gmail.com
>> because, with the exception of "snapshot too old", none of those
>> patches have attracted more than a single vote to revert. While
>> "snapshot too old" has attracted three votes to revert (Tom, Bruce,
>> Andres), one of those was on the grounds of not liking the feature i
>> general rather than any specific problem with the implementation (Tom)
>> and another gave no reason at all (Bruce). When originally proposed,
>> there was clear consensus that the feature was useful, so any revert
>> should be on the grounds that the current implementation is flawed.
>
> ... which, indeed, is precisely what Andres is asserting, no? I do
> not understand your conclusion.
>
> If the threshold is "more than one vote to revert", I'm sure that can
> be arranged. For the most part I think people have assumed that if
> one senior hacker complains about something, it's not really necessary
> for other people to duplicate that person's review effort. We don't
> have a surplus of manpower available for such things, and I believe
> most of us are going flat out right now anyway trying to get ready
> for beta. Duplicate reviews are hard to come by.

Just my .02, pretty sure the majority of the community says, "TGL just
sent -1, argument over." That may or may not be a good thing but his
experience and depth of knowledge of our code base pretty much seals it
for most of us.

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.