| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albert Cervera i Areny <albert(at)nan-tic(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: next CommitFest |
| Date: | 2009-11-13 14:17:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1258121845.14054.631.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> We do ask people to write docs, but I
> don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs.
Yes, that is a good example. It's "a rule", plain and simple. Nobody
gets their spleen removed for breaking it, yet it is still somehow
enforced.
I find it strange that suggesting a new rule is opposed on the general
basis that *any* rule cannot be enforced; surely therefore we cannot
have new rules at all, ever? We clearly do have new rules from time to
time. So what's wrong with this new rule?
Should we update the FAQ to say, "enclosing docs with a patch is a rule,
but actually its not really and you only suffer mild rebuke if you break
it and can therefore be ignored"?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-11-13 14:31:21 | Re: next CommitFest |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-11-13 14:12:15 | Re: cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here |