Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Eh? Previously we allowed code to go in with documentation to be
>> written after feature freeze. Is this no longer acceptable?
>
> I don't think we usually allow that for minor features. For big
> things, it's probably more reasonable, but I would think that at least
> some effort should be put in before commit. I'm new here, though, so
> I might be all wet. But I wouldn't want to commit ten patches without
> documentation and then have someone come back and say, OK, you
> committed 'em, you write the docs. Or else no one comes back, and I
> forget, and it never gets done.
Well, traditionnaly, we had Bruce to sort those things out. But in this
case the problem is not so much about writing documentation than
deciding where to put it and what to explain exactly. I think.
Anyway saying the patch can not be considered by a commiter for only
lack of complete documentation is not a policy here, IME. It can happen,
but I would consider it bad news if it were to become a way to force the
release timeframe. What is hard is doing *good* compromises.
Regards,
--
dim