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

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.

> There's a lot of good stuff out there, sure, and even more good *ideas*,
> but it's important to make sure we can provide a stable system with
> regular releases. As discussed, we really need to be ready to truely
> triage the remaining patch set, figure out who is going to work on what,
> and punt the rest til post-9.3.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen