Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > > There are a fair number of things in the TODO list that you put there
> > > > because you liked 'em, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees.
> > > > I certainly will not accept "once it's on the TODO list it cannot be
> > > > questioned"...
> > >
> > > I put it there because I didn't think there was any question.
> > Honetsly I don't understand what TODO means.
> > Can a developer solve the TODOs any way he likes ?
> I meant to say there was no question we wanted this item fixed, not that
> there was no need for implementation discussions.
> In summary, code changes have three stages:
> o Do we want this feature?
> o How do we want the feature to behave?
> o How do we want the feature implemented?
> Tom was complaining because the patch appeared without enough discussion
> on these items. However, from my perspective, this is really trying to
> micromanage the process. When people post patches, we aren't forced to
> apply them.
But shouldn't someone check the patch ?
If the patch is small, making the patch seems
the simplest way for anyone but if the patch
is big, it seems painful for anyone to check
the patch. If no one checks the patch, would
we apply the patch blindly or reject it ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-04-16 00:47:39|
|Subject: Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-04-15 23:36:04|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Notify argument?|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-04-16 00:15:53|
|Subject: Re: default values for views |
|Previous:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2002-04-16 00:06:53|
|Subject: Re: default values for views|