| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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 20:13:20 |
| Message-ID: | 19572.1178136800@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2007-02-05 at 08:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> 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? If it does not apply cleanly
> or causes regression tests to fail, the process would figure that out
> quickly and cheaply. There is little cost in attempting to apply a
> non-sane patch.
Unless it contains a trojan horse. I don't think many buildfarm owners
are running the tests inside a sandbox so tight that they don't care
how nasty the code that runs there might be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2007-05-02 20:32:19 | Re: Feature freeze progress report |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-05-02 20:12:49 | Optimization in convert_string_datum? |