Hi, On 2022-02-17 09:17:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > Commit messages need to describe what the commit actually changes. > Theoretical ideas are fine, but if I, as a committer who have done > significant work in this area in the past, can't read the commit > message and understand what is actually different, it's not a good > commit message. I think you *really* need to put more effort into > making your patches, and the emails about your patches, and the commit > messages for your patches understandable to other people. Otherwise, > waiting 3 months between when you post the patch and when you commit > it means nothing. You can wait 10 years to commit and still get > objections, if other people don't understand what you're doing. > > I would guess that's really the root of Andres's concern here.
Yes. > I believe that both Andres and I are in favor of the kinds of things you > want to do here *in principle*. Yea. And I might even agree more with Peter than with you on some of the contended design bits. But it's too hard to know right now, because too many things are changed at once and the descriptions are high level. And often about some vague ideal principles that are nearly impossible to concretely disagree with. > But in practice I feel like it's not working well, and thereby putting the > project at risk. What if some day one of us needs to fix a bug in your code? > It's not like VACUUM is some peripheral system where bugs aren't that > critical -- and it's also not the case that the risk of introducing new bugs > is low. Historically, it's anything but. +1 Greetings, Andres Freund
