Re: hot standby - merged up to CVS HEAD

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 13:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure why you're stirring this up again.
> > > 
> 
> > You stated:
> > 
> > - It's going to be very confusing if people submit their own versions of
> > - it. So now we have mine, Heikki's and Robert's. I'd like this to stop
> > - please, have a little faith and a little patience. Presumably Robert's
> > - rebasing patch is best place to start from now for later work.
> > 
> > I assume your last sentence is saying exactly that Robert's version
> > should be used as the most current reprsentation of this feature patch.
> 
> That isn't what I meant then and isn't what I think now: that patch is
> not verified.

I am not sure how to respond to you when I can't even interpret what you
say in emails, e.g. "Presumably Robert's rebasing patch is best place to
start from now for later work."

> As you point out, people can do anything they want with submitted code,
> so they may make any judgement they wish about that patch. If anybody
> thinks any good will come from ignoring the opinion of the original
> author, go right ahead.

Right.  At some point more people are going to get involved and complete
the patch --- historically this is the way complex patches have evolved,
and I think many of your patches are in that group.

> > The bottom line is that you think you have ownership of the patch and
> > the feature --- you do not.
> > 
> > You are right you don't have to justify anything, but neither can you
> > claim ownership of the patch/feature and complain that others are
> > working on it too.  This is a community project --- if you want your
> > patches to remain your property, I suggest you no longer post them to
> > our community lists.  If you are actively working on patches, I assume
> > others will not duplicate your work, but if you are idle, others are
> > encouraged to keep improving the patch.  Again, if you don't like
> > that,
> > then perhaps the community-development process isn't for you.
> 
> I've *never* spoken of code or feature ownership. But this is a
> community project and I can request teamwork from other contributors,
> which is what I did.
> 
> I've said very clearly that I am working on this and it's fairly
> laughable to suggest that anybody thought I wasn't. What more should I
> do to prove something is "active" if you won't accept my clearly spoken
> word? How did you decide I was idle exactly? 

Your statement of 15 Jul 2009 stated:

- I've said very clearly that I would work on this for 8.5 [at the
- developer meeting] and also that it wouldn't be ready for the first
- commit fest, when asked. I was told recently that someone heard the
- patch was dead; I've never said that, but I would like a summer holiday.

I assume that means you were not actively working on it, hence my
conclusion, which is probably wrong because I can't manage to interpret
your emails.  :-(

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +