From: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Commit fest queue |
Date: | 2008-04-11 03:28:54 |
Message-ID: | 37ed240d0804102028j1b5619eeo10f1100528a70a65@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I just wanted to correct the apparent impression that "patches don't
> > get ignored here". Patches get ignored. The difference between us
> > and Apache is we pretend it doesn't happen and don't suggest to
> > submitters what action to take when it does. Which puts Apache ahead
> > of us IMO.
>
> Uh, no, there is a difference between "not acted on instantly" and
> "never acted on at all". The Apache docs that were quoted upthread
> suggested that they might allow things to fall through the cracks
> indefinitely without repeat prodding. That might be (in fact very
> likely is) an unfair assessment of their real response habits.
> But you are claiming that not getting to a patch right away is as
> bad as never getting to it at all. I beg to disagree.
>
Not really. I'm claiming that, to the submitter, a response that
hasn't happened yet and a response that is never coming look pretty
much identical.
Cheers,
BJ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-11 03:40:31 | Re: Commit fest queue |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-04-11 03:28:02 | Re: Commit fest queue |