Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Joshua Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> As long as we have solidarity of the committers that this is not allowed,
>> however, this is not a real problem. And it appears that we do. In the
>> future, it shouldn't even be necessary to discuss it.
> Solidarity?
> Simon - who was a committer last time I checked - seems to think that
> the current process is entirely bunko. And that is resulting in the
> waste of a lot of time that could be better spent.
Yes. If it were anybody but Simon, we wouldn't be spending a lot of
time on it; we'd just say "sorry, this has to wait for 9.2" and that
would be the end of it. As things stand, we have to convince him not to
commit these things ... or else be prepared to fight a war over whether
to revert them, which will be even more time-consuming and
trust-destroying.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
