On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>> This patch has been pushed in a clear violation of established policy.
>>>
>>> Fundamental pieces of the patch have changed *after* the commitfest
>>> started. And there wasn't a recent patch in the commitfest either - the
>>> entry was moved over from the last round without a new patch. It didn't
>>> receive independent review (Robert explicitly said his wasn't a full
>>> review). It wasn't marked ready for committer. The intention to commit
>>> wasn't announced publically. There were *clear* and unaddressed
>>> objections to committing the patch as is, by a committer (Robert)
>>> nonetheless.
>>
>> I have no reason to doubt your version of events here
>
> Fortunately, you don't have to take anything on faith. This is a
> public mailing list, and the exact sequence of events is open to
> inspection by anyone who cares to take a few minutes to do so. You
> can easily verify whether my statement that I asked Stephen twice to
> hold off committing it is correct or not; and you can also verify the
> rest of the history that Andres and I recounted. This is all there in
> black and white.
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.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company