Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>>> For all of that, I'm not sure that people failing to seek consensus
>>> before coding is really so much of a problem as you seem to think.
>>
>> For my part, I don't think the lack of consensus-finding before
>> submitting patches is, in itself, a problem.
>>
>> The problem, imv, is that everyone is expecting that once they've
>> written a patch and put it on a commitfest that it's going to get
>> committed- and it seems like committers are feeling under pressure
>> that, because something's on the CF app, it needs to be committed
>> in some form.
>>
>
> FWIW, I have NO delusions that something I propose or submit or put in
> a CF is necessarily going to get committed. For me it's not committed
> until I can see it in 'git log' and even then, I've seen stuff get
> reverted. I would hope that if a committer isn't comfortable with a
> patch they would explain why, and decline to commit. Then it's up to
> the submitter as to whether or not they want to make changes, try to
> explain why they are right and the committer is wrong, or withdraw the
> patch.

I think that's the right attitude, but it doesn't always work out that
way. Reviewers and committers sometimes spend a lot of time writing a
review and then get flamed for their honest opinion about the
readiness of a patch. Of course, reviewers and committers can be
jerks, too. As far as I know, we're all human, here.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company