Robert Haas wrote:
> I actually think that the phrase "this has been discussed before and
> rejected" should be permanently removed from our list of excuses for
> rejecting a patch. Or if we must use that excuse, then I think a link
> to the relevant discussion is a must, and the relevant discussion had
> better reflect the fact that $TOPIC was in fact rejected. It seems to
> me that in at least 50% of cases, someone comes back and says one of
> the following things:
>
> 1. I searched the archives and could find no discussion along those lines.
> 2. I read that discussion and it doesn't appear to me that it reflects
> a rejection of this idea. Instead what people seemed to be saying was
> X.
> 3. At the time that might have been true, but what has changed in the
> meanwhile is X.
Agreed. Perhaps we need an anti-TODO that lists things we don't want in
more detail. The TODO has that for a few items, but scaling things up
there will be cumbersome.
I agree that having the person saying it was rejected find the email
discussion is ideal --- if they can't find it, odds are the patch person
will not be able to find it either.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +