Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 13:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure why you're stirring this up again. > > > > > > You stated: > > > > - It's going to be very confusing if people submit their own versions of > > - it. So now we have mine, Heikki's and Robert's. I'd like this to stop > > - please, have a little faith and a little patience. Presumably Robert's > > - rebasing patch is best place to start from now for later work. > > > > I assume your last sentence is saying exactly that Robert's version > > should be used as the most current reprsentation of this feature patch. > > That isn't what I meant then and isn't what I think now: that patch is > not verified.
I am not sure how to respond to you when I can't even interpret what you say in emails, e.g. "Presumably Robert's rebasing patch is best place to start from now for later work." > As you point out, people can do anything they want with submitted code, > so they may make any judgement they wish about that patch. If anybody > thinks any good will come from ignoring the opinion of the original > author, go right ahead. Right. At some point more people are going to get involved and complete the patch --- historically this is the way complex patches have evolved, and I think many of your patches are in that group. > > The bottom line is that you think you have ownership of the patch and > > the feature --- you do not. > > > > You are right you don't have to justify anything, but neither can you > > claim ownership of the patch/feature and complain that others are > > working on it too. This is a community project --- if you want your > > patches to remain your property, I suggest you no longer post them to > > our community lists. If you are actively working on patches, I assume > > others will not duplicate your work, but if you are idle, others are > > encouraged to keep improving the patch. Again, if you don't like > > that, > > then perhaps the community-development process isn't for you. > > I've *never* spoken of code or feature ownership. But this is a > community project and I can request teamwork from other contributors, > which is what I did. > > I've said very clearly that I am working on this and it's fairly > laughable to suggest that anybody thought I wasn't. What more should I > do to prove something is "active" if you won't accept my clearly spoken > word? How did you decide I was idle exactly? Your statement of 15 Jul 2009 stated: - I've said very clearly that I would work on this for 8.5 [at the - developer meeting] and also that it wouldn't be ready for the first - commit fest, when asked. I was told recently that someone heard the - patch was dead; I've never said that, but I would like a summer holiday. I assume that means you were not actively working on it, hence my conclusion, which is probably wrong because I can't manage to interpret your emails. :-( -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers