Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/contrib/pg_dumpaccounts (Makefile README

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ned Lilly <ned(at)greatbridge(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/contrib/pg_dumpaccounts (Makefile README
Date: 2000-11-03 00:39:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > Ned Lilly <ned(at)greatbridge(dot)com> writes:
> > > Well, here in relatively minor form is the First Example of a Great 
> > > Bridge Priority (which Tom, Bruce, and Jan have all predicted would 
> > > come... ;-)
> > 
> > Hmm.  I wasn't aware that Jan had done it at Great Bridge's request,
> > and I am going to make a point of not letting that affect my opinion ;-).
> > 
> > What really got my ire up was that this change was committed several
> > days *after* core had agreed that 7.0.3 was frozen and ready to go except
> > for updating the changelog, and that it was committed with no prior
> > notice or discussion.  The fact that GB asked for it doesn't make that
> > better; if anything it makes it worse.  We wouldn't have accepted such
> > a patch at this late date from an outside contributor, I believe.
> > Jan should surely have known better than to handle it in this fashion.
> > 
> > Need I remind you, also, that GB has been bugging us for several weeks
> > to get 7.0.3 released ASAP?  Last-minute changes don't further that
> > goal.
> > 
> > The early returns from pghackers seem to be that people favor just
> > dropping the script into /contrib and not worrying about how well
> > tested/documented it is.  If that's the consensus then I'll shut up
> > ... but I do *not* like the way this was handled.
> I totally agree with Tom on all his points.  If people were worried we
> would not be objective now that we are employed by GB, they can rest
> easy.
> Also, seems like it is hidden enough in /contrib for it to stay.  While
> I would not have added it myself, I do not feel strongly enough to
> remove Jan's commit.  However, I am not going to mention it in the 7.0.3
> release notes.

I do feel strongly about this ... 7.0.3 was considered in a release state
*before* it was committed, pending your docs changes ... personally, if we
leave this in contrib, my vote is to hold off the release a suitable
amount of time for testing purposes ... Jan has added a new feature that
nobody had any pre-warning about, not even other developers in the same
company as he is in ... not a good precedent :(

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-11-03 00:40:59
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/contrib/pg_dumpaccounts (Makefile README
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-11-03 00:35:26
Subject: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-11-03 00:40:59
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/contrib/pg_dumpaccounts (Makefile README
Previous:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2000-11-03 00:34:56
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/contrib/pg_dumpaccounts (Makefile README

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group