Hi,
On 2018-04-04 21:07:25 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> It's also neat and tight. Look how easy it was for Peter to add WITH
> semantics on top of it.
Err. Several parts of the code definitely do not look "neat and
tight". As detailed in my email. Possibly that's necessary, but you've
not argued that.
> And it's isolated, so its not a threat to anybody that doesn't choose
> to use it. Users want it and will use this; if I didn't know that for
> certain I wouldn't spend time on it.
Architectural costs are a thing.
> The normal way is to make review comments that allow change. Your
> request for change of the parser data structures is fine and can be
> done, possibly by Saturday
I did request changes, and you've so far ignored those requests.
> If saying "I'm unhappy with something" is sufficient grounds for
> rejecting a patch, I'm surprised to hear it. There has been no
> discussion of what exactly would be better, only that what we have is
> somehow wrong, a point which both Pavan and I dispute, not least
> because the executor has already been rewritten once at Peter's
> request.
You've not publicly disputed that, no.
> I was under no pressure at all to commit this. In my opinion this is a
> good version of MERGE and that is why I committed it. If it were not,
Why did you then commit a patch six hours after objections were raised?
Without responding to them? And again breaking the patch into commits in
a way that made no sense and in fact was not compilable for an hour?
That does looks rushed, unless you provide a better explanation
- Andres