Re: inclusions WAS: Increased company involvement

From: Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: inclusions WAS: Increased company involvement
Date: 2005-05-04 16:11:04
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0505041804070.7072-100000@zigo.dhs.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 4 May 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> > Just how many incidents where people change the wrong files do you except.
> > Maybe it's just easier to handle one such case every third year than to
> > set up some system to prevent it.
>
> The number of incidents isn't the issue, the fact that it could happen
> at all is.
>
> This isn't a web browser.

Du you have anything against browsers? :-)

> This is a system that companies, very - very big companies rely on. We
> must have a controlled, documented process for comitters.

And?

If you tell someone he/she is just allowed to commit in the pl/foo
subproject then that's probably more then enough. The nice thing with cvs
is that old things are not lost and all the commits are sent out on a
mailinglist. I don't see how this is any different just because some very
- very big companies are involved.

If it's easy to do, fine. I just don't see it as a very important thing.

Anyway. I think it's a good thing that postgresql do as little as possible
and stuff that can be handled separately are.

--
/Dennis Björklund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2005-05-04 16:27:11 Re: inclusions WAS: Increased company involvement
Previous Message Robert Treat 2005-05-04 15:46:41 Re: Regression tests