Re: RLS feature has been committed

On 2014-09-23 16:16:18 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2014-09-23 13:23:32 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >> Just to be clear here, the *only* issue we should even be discussing
> >> is whether the patch should or should not have been committed in the
> >> face of those objections. As Josh has also noted, the commitfest
> >> process was never meant to constrain what committers do or when they
> >> do it with their own patches or ones they've worked heavily on. They
> >> are there as a backstop to make sure that regardless of what the
> >> committers are doing day to day, patch authors know that their patch
> >> is expected to receive some review within N weeks.
> >
> > FWIW, while not really at the core of the problem here, I don't think
> > this is entirely true anymore.
> 
> I'm not aware that we've made any such changes since the process was
> originally developed. The fact that developers may constrain their own
> review/commit work to certain periods is a personal choice, not policy
> or requirement.

I do think that it has widely lead to a bit more formal expectance of
committers patches being reviewed by others.

> > We certainly seem to to expect bigger feature patches to go through the
> > commitfest process to some degree. Just look at the discussions about
> > *committers* patches being committed or not at each cycles last
> > commitfest. Every single time the point in time they've been submitted
> > to which CF plays a rather prominent role in the discussion.
> 
> They should be tracked on the app certainly, but that doesn't prevent
> review/commits being made outside of the commitfest.

And I've explicitly stated that I don't believe that they should be.

> > Also look at committers like Robert that *do* feel constrained about
> > when to commit or even expect review for submitted patches.
> 
> Regardless of what Robert may feel, review should only generally be
> *expected* during a commitfest, but it can be done at any time.

I think you're misunderstanding my point here. I would never ever
protest against *more* reviews. Stephen quoted the delay of getting
review as a reason for committing the patch at the point he did. And
that seems unwarranted, because the current form of the patch (which is
significantly different!) was only posted in the middle of the
commitfest.

The reason I mentioned the commitfest is that he had couldn't expect a
review in the couple of days in which the patch existed in the current
form - because other reviewers were still trying to keep up (and
failing!) with the stuff that was submitted to the commitest.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services