"Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> I just wanted to correct the apparent impression that "patches don't
> get ignored here". Patches get ignored. The difference between us
> and Apache is we pretend it doesn't happen and don't suggest to
> submitters what action to take when it does. Which puts Apache ahead
> of us IMO.
Uh, no, there is a difference between "not acted on instantly" and
"never acted on at all". The Apache docs that were quoted upthread
suggested that they might allow things to fall through the cracks
indefinitely without repeat prodding. That might be (in fact very
likely is) an unfair assessment of their real response habits.
But you are claiming that not getting to a patch right away is as
bad as never getting to it at all. I beg to disagree.
regards, tom lane