Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I don't mean to be ungrateful about the actual reviews at all - and I did value the feedback received (which I hope was reasonably clear in the various replies I sent). I sense a bit of attacking the messenger in your tone...
I thought there was a moderately big difference between the reality of the review you got and how you were characterizing it, and I was just trying to provide some perspective on how bad a true "bit of review" only would have worked. Since I saw you disclaimed that wording with a smiley I know it wasn't intending to be ungrateful, and I didn't intend to shoot the messenger. Apologies if my tone grazed you though.
In any case, process feedback noted and assimilated into recommended practice: I just added a section about WIP patches to http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch#Patch_submission
While I was in there I also added some more notes on my personal top patch submission peeve, patches whose purpose in life is to improve performance that don't come with associated easy to run test cases, including a sample of that test running on a system that shows the speedup clearly. If I were in charge I just would make it standard project policy to reject any performance patch without those characteristics immediately.
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support g...@2ndquadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
