On 2015-10-14 17:46:25 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Then your argument about the CF process doesn't seem to make sense.
> Why? I ask again, what do you mean by "separate process"? Not going through the CF and normal release process. > either it's in core (and follows its processes) or it isn't. But you > can't say you don't want it in core but that you also don't > want it to follow a "separate process". Oh for crying out loud. You write: > 4) You can't easily extend the checks performed, without forking > postgres or going through the (lengthy, rigorous) cf process. and > > I don't think we as a community want to do that without review > > mechanisms in place, and I personally don't think we want to add > > separate processes for this. > That's what "contribute" means in my book. I don't see how those two statements don't conflict. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
