| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
| Date: | 2007-10-10 10:25:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1192011902.4233.200.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 11:50 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > IMO, the patch is reverted, and submitted for 8.4 or pgfoundry.
>
> Yes, reverting is an option
Reverting is only an option if we need to solve a technical problem. If
there is no problem then why would we revert it? The only argument I've
seen for reverting the patch is that it broke a process.
It's hard enough for Developers to get code in without a team of
Anti-Developers trying to take it back out again. Perhaps we should have
an anti-credits section in the release notes to allow all those who've
managed to get work removed get full credit for their anti-efforts. :-)
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Smita Vijayakumar | 2007-10-10 10:48:59 | Inserting an Encrypted file into DB |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2007-10-10 09:39:55 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-10 10:27:09 | Re: pgstattuple module |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-10 10:17:43 | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |