On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Guys, can we please knock it off with the dueling patches?
>
> Peter, it's really not all that helpful to take somebody else's patch,
> rewrite it in a form that they may or may not agree with (even if it's
> just the comments), and post that as "v2". And when the person then
> posts "v3" that reverts most of your changes, don't go put them all
> back and call that "v4". Instead, you should take the hint: these are
> not "versions" of the same patch - they are two different approaches
> to the same problem. In this type of situation, I generally post my
> patch with a name like "topicofthepatch-rmh-v1.patch" or
> "topicofthepatch-rmh-20150323.patch", putting my initials in there to
> show that this is my version of the patch, not the original author's
> and that it may or may not be endorsed by the original author. Having
> 26 versions of this patch where all of the odd-numbered versions looks
> like Andrew's original version and all of the even-numbered versions
> look like Peter's "v2" is not going to make anybody happy - not either
> of you, not me, and not anybody else here.
As I said, I don't really consider that my patch is a rewrite,
especially V4, which changes nothing substantive except removing
32-bit support. I do take your point, though - Andrew's objections
should have been reason enough to name my patches another way. I don't
want to take credit for Andrew's work, though, since very little of
substance has actually been changed. I can understand why his remarks
would give the impression that this is some kind of rewrite, but they
mostly applied to my removal of numeric tracking of non-NULL values.
He won that argument, so that's now irrelevant.
I must also admit that I am somewhat annoyed here, since Andrew has
questioned essentially ever revision I've proposed to both of the sort
support patches he wrote, and in a rather bellicose way. They were
mostly very modest revisions.
--
Peter Geoghegan