On 10/14/2015 05:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > 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: >
Andres, I'm not here looking for ways to quibble with you. So, please "assume good faith". >> 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. > Right. I was saying that "contribute" always implies review before acceptance, responding to the first half of your sentence. The second half assumes it makes sense to discuss "review process" as a separate issue from inclusion in core. It does not make sense, and I said so. If you have a bone to pick with my comment about CF review being lengthy, the points was that an independent tool can move more quickly to accept submissions because: 1. there's less at stake 2. if it's written in a higher level language, enhancements are easier. Those don't hold when adding another check involves changes to the `postgres` binary. Fair? Amir -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
