| From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc Munro" <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Naz Gassiep" <naz(at)mira(dot)net>, heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: Feature freeze progress report |
| Date: | 2007-05-02 19:04:04 |
| Message-ID: | 61581.75.177.135.163.1178132644.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marc Munro wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-05 at 08:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> Naz Gassiep wrote:
>> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> >
>> >> Naz Gassiep wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I believe the suggestion was to have an automated process that only
>> ran
>> >>> on known, sane patches.
>> >>>
>> >> How do we know in advance of reviewing them that they are sane?
>> >>
>> > Same way as happens now.
>> >
>>
>> The question was rhetorical ... there is no list of "certified sane but
>> unapplied" patches. You are proceeding on the basis of a faulty
>> understanding of how our processes work.
>
> Why do we need to know the patch is sane?
Because not doing so is dangerous and a major security hole. I won't run
arbitrary code on my machine and I won't create infrastructure (e.g.
buildfarm) to get others to do it either.
You are also conveniently ignoring all the other reasons why this won't
help anyone much (e.g. see Bruce's comments upthread).
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | JEAN-PIERRE PELLETIER | 2007-05-02 19:24:42 | Re: temporal variants of generate_series() |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-05-02 19:02:39 | Re: Sequential scans |