On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
>> The documentation has definitely improved from the last time Robert
>> looked at it, but I fear it still needs some more work. I'm willing to
>> do that work, but I need something concrete.
> It seems to me documentation is required to get into the source tree
> before beta, and as we see with some other patches it's definitely the
> case even with our newer procedures that some code gets in without its
> documentation properly finished. I guess this amounts to the commiter
> willing to fill up the docs later on.
> But here it's even better as we have the author willing to stay there
> and write needed documentation as soon as community agrees on what that
> In case I'm not clear, what I'm saying is that I think we can consider
> the writable CTE patch ready for commit even though we still have to
> decide what its impacts on documentation should be.
Whether a patch is ready to commit will be up to the committer, and I
am doubtful that anyone other than Tom is qualified to do this one.
Others may feel differently, of course. The rest of us should focus
our effort on improving the patch, rather than arguing about whether
we would commit it as is.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2010-02-07 21:54:54|
|Subject: Re: damage control mode|
|Previous:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2010-02-07 21:25:38|
|Subject: Re: Hot standby documentation|