| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Brightwell, Adam" <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yeb(dot)havinga(at)portavita(dot)nl> |
| Subject: | Re: RLS feature has been committed |
| Date: | 2014-09-23 03:23:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+u+ho2cjTCwxp9WCZ4DUq-sOqHDUYLCAuqKFaPiNu84w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 04:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I have no reason to doubt your version of events here (although
> > Stephen may wish to address what you've said - I'm basing that on his
> > tone elsewhere). I must ask, though: what do you propose to do about
> > it in this instance? He has been chastised. Would you like to make a
> > point of formalizing what are (if I'm not mistaken) currently defacto
> > rules? Should RLS be reverted, and revisited in a future CF?
>
> The CommitFests were never meant to restrict when a committer could
> commit a patch. The point of the CFs was to give committers time *off*
> from committing patches. If a committer wants to commit something
> completely outside of the CF process, they are welcome to, as long as it
> receives adequate review.
>
> So if there's an argument here, it's whether or not the committed RLS
> patch was adequately reviewed (and if not, if it should be reverted),
Who decides if the patch is adequately reviewed?
Author, Committer or Reviewer? In CF, that is comparatively clear
that once Reviewer is satisfied, he marks the patch as
Ready For Committer and then Committer picks up and if he is satisfied
with the review and quality of patch, then he commits the patch or if the
Committer himself is reviewer than in many cases once he is satisfied,
he commits it.
Now in this case, if I understand correctly the story is not
so straightforward. It seems to me Robert as the Reviewer was not
completely satisfied where as Stephen as the Committer was pretty
much okay with the patch so he went ahead and commits it.
In short, if it is solely at the discretion of Committer that he can
decide if the patch has got adequate Review and he is satisfied
with the quality of patch, then I think what Stephen did in this case
is not wrong (though I am not the one who can decide whether it is
right or wrong, just sharing my thoughts), however if you think Reviewer
also has stake (especially when other Reviewer is also Committer)
in deciding the quality of patch, then Stephen should have waited for
more time (till the Reviewer also gets satisfied).
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-23 03:25:06 | Re: RLS feature has been committed |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-09-23 03:19:51 | Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit. |