Re: ECPG bug fix: DECALRE STATEMENT and DEALLOCATE, DESCRIBE

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 12:10 AM Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> How do you know I didn't spend 15 minutes looking at the patch and the
> whole email thread? I surely did and it was more than 15 minutes, but
> not enough to give a meaningful comment. If you can do it in 15
> minutes, great for you, I cannot.

That was just an example of a token response. I don't know anything about ecpg.

> Besides, I have not ignored the RMT. I don't know why you keep
> insisting on something that is simply not true.

My email of July 30 was itself pretty strongly worded, but went
unanswered for a full week. Not even a token response. If that doesn't
count as "ignoring the RMT", then what does? How much time has to pass
before radio silence begins to count as "ignoring the RMT", in your
view of things? A month? More?

> At the risk of repeating myself, my concern is *only* the rude and
> disrespectful way of addressing me in the third person while talking to
> me directly. Again, I though I made that clear in my first email about
> the topic and every one that followed.

Okay, I understand that now.

> I was *never* asked for *any* response in *any* email, save the
> original technical discussion, which I did answer with telling people
> that I'm lacking time but will eventually get to it. Just to be
> precise, your email from July 30 told me and everyone how this will be
> handled. A reasonable procedure, albeit not one we'd like to see
> happen. But why should I answer and what? It's not that you bring this
> up as a discussion point, but as a fact.

As Andrew pointed out, there is a general expectation that committers
take care of their own open items. That doesn't mean that they are
obligated to personally fix bugs. Just that the final responsibility
to make sure that the issue is resolved rests with the committer. This
is one of the few hard rules that we have.

As I've said before, RMT-driven revert is something that I see as an
option of last resort. The RMT charter doesn't go quite that far, but
I'd argue that my interpretation is quite natural given how committer
responsibility works in general. In other words, I personally believe
that our bottom-up approach is on balance a good one, and should be
preserved.

Maybe the issue is muddied by the fact that we each have different
views of the community process, at a high level (I'm unsure). Unlike
you, I don't believe that RMT-driven revert is "a reasonable
procedure". I myself see the RMT's power to resolve open items in this
way as a necessary evil. Something to be avoided at all costs. Why
should people that don't know anything about ecpg make decisions about
ecpg? In general they should not.

--
Peter Geoghegan