| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jan Wieck" <wieck(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
| Date: | 2007-10-11 05:46:26 |
| Message-ID: | 200710110746260000@190678651 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > The results have nothing to do with whether the process was followed.
> > We do not ignore process violations just because the outcome was OK.
>
> Agreed. But reversing something that came out OK for no other reason
> than that the process was violated? I know you don't, but some people
> are asking for exactly that.
So as long as something is committed, and only breaks certain (for now unnamed) platforms (until fixed that is), then procedure doesn't apply.
And it helps if certain external projects ask for it. I'm not entirely clear on the criteria for those projects.
I don't particularly like that fact but I think it's good to have discussed it and spelled it out. And I will certainly accept it since it's been discussed in public and seems to have fair agreement between core members.
The important thing is that we have documented a way around the rules so next time it's done noone needs to bother complaining.
/Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2007-10-11 06:50:05 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
| Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2007-10-11 05:09:05 | Re: full text search in 8.3 |