On Wed, 2024-07-17 at 15:03 -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > If I'm counting the votes right
... > , you and Tom have voted that the feature's > current state is okay, and I and Laurenz have voted that it's not > okay. ... > A tie would become a decision against the unreleased behavior. ... > In the event of a decision against the unreleased behavior, reverting > the > feature is the remedy that could proceed without further decision > making. You haven't established that any problem actually exists in version 17, and your arguments have been a moving target throughout this subthread. I reject the procedural framework that you are trying to establish. Voting won't change the fact that the "stability within a major version" that you are arguing against[1] was highlighted as a benefit in my initial proposal[2] for all reviewers to see. If you press forward with this approach, I'll use judgement that is sufficiently deferential to the review process before making any hasty decisions. Alternatively, I suggest that you participate in the thread that I started here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d75d2d0d1d2bd45b2c332c47e3e0a67f0640b49c.camel%40j-davis.com which seems like a more direct (and more complete) path to a resolution of your concerns. I speak only for myself, but I assure you that I have an open mind in that discussion, and that I have no intention force a Unicode update past objections. Regards, Jeff Davis [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240711125040.11.nmi...@google.com [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ff4c2f2f9c8fc7ca27c1c24ae37ecaeaeaff6b53.ca...@j-davis.com
