| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 14:31:21 |
| Message-ID: | 200911131431.nADEVLD02980@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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"?
Well, right now we ask for docs, but if they are not supplied, I think
we just write them ourselves. Is a different enforcement method being
suggested here?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-11-13 14:38:03 | Re: next CommitFest |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-11-13 14:17:25 | Re: next CommitFest |