----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Igor Kovalenko" <Igor(dot)Kovalenko(at)motorola(dot)com>; "Ross J. Reedstrom"
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 8:17 PM
Subject: RE: [PATCHES] Support for QNX6, POSIX IPC and PTHREAD-style locking
> > > At this point, I'd suggest you yield gracefully: the core developers
> > > don't want it right now, but have read your patch and given you
> > > feedback, to improve you submission for 7.3 (in about two weeks).
> > <bow><bow><bow>
> > At this point, I suggest core developers will ask me when/if they
> > feel like
> > they want another submission from me.
> > <bow><bow><bow>
> > Merry X-mas & happy new year everyone.
> > <yield><yield><yield>
> > - igor
> *sigh* I don't know if I really should be replying to a troll post, but
> the heck...
> Look, Igor - noone's saying that your code isn't any good. They're just
> saying that it's too late in the development cycle to add it. That's the
> rules, and they apply to everyone. Your code would be quite happily
> accepted into 7.3, so get over it.
The trouble is, there seems to be NO rules. 'Too late' does not qualify as
rule, IMHO. Not as formal one anyway and informal ones are hard to follow
precisely. There should be formal mechanism for acceptance of patches, like
'it should satisfy criterias x,y,z build at least on platforms X,Y,Z' etc. I
did not even see much of the vote. There was bunch of people who gave me
'mixed signals' and every single one of them had tendency to speak on behalf
OTOH, not a single one of them apparently has tried to apply the patch on
his platform to actually help me verify the patch. I did that for 3
platforms and I was sort of assuming if everyone does it at least for his
one, it should be demonstrated in no time that patch is harmless. That did
not happened, so I was jumping through a lot of hoops only to be presented
with new ones. Never good enough... So I was bitter not about delaying or
being 'rejected'. It was about lack of cooperation from you fellas.
> I've submitted a few patches in my time, in fact just before the 7.1
> release - and my stuff was held until 7.2. And yes, I'm kind of happy
> seeing my code in a release. However, I didn't complain when my patch was
> put on hold, or the core developers gave me lots of feedback about issues
> with my patch.
There was not lots of feedback in my view. The only meaningful thing was
said by Tom, about better doing new abstraction for semaphores, than putting
#ifdefs into higher levels. But I knew that myself, so it was not hard for
me to agree. Bunch of remarks made by Peter were almost all unjustified. He
quickly decided that some parts are 'bogus' and never followed up on them.
Funny thing, there was in fact an oversight in the PTHREAD mutexes code for
locks, but nobody picked that up ;)
Don't worry, I will 'get over', and this is not intended to be a troll.
Miscommunications happen and this might be lesson for me and others.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-11-28 18:17:45|
|Subject: Re: Support for QNX6, POSIX IPC and PTHREAD-style locking |
|Previous:||From: Bill Studenmund||Date: 2001-11-28 06:08:38|
|Subject: Re: Patch to add Heimdal kerberos support, with patch|