Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 10/8/2007 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> >> Marko Kreen wrote:
> >>> Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
> >>> whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
> >>> my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have
> >>> their own opinion.
> >
> >> Right. I can see your point, but it's my understanding that -hackers is
> >> really the ones supposed to decide on this.
> >
> > It would ultimately have been core's decision, but the discussion should
> > have happened on -hackers. There was no reason for it to be private.
>
> That blame certainly belongs to me and I apologize for jumping that and
> adding it to contrib without any -hackers discussion.
>
> It is definitely a timing issue since I write this very email from JFK,
> boarding a flight to Hong Kong in less than an hour and will be mostly
> offline for the rest of the week.
I don't see how timing has anything to do with this. You could have
added it between beta1 and beta2 after sufficient hackers discussion.
Doing it the way you did with no warning, right before beta, and then
leaving is the worse of all times. I am surprised we are not backing
out the patch and requiring that the patch go through the formal review
process.
This is not the first time you have had trouble with patches. There was
an issue with your patch of February, 2007:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg00385.php
(In summary, you had to be coaxed to explain your patch to the
community.) Basically, I am not sure you understand the process that
has to be followed, or feel you are somehow immune from following it.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +