Re: RLS feature has been committed

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

> On 2014-09-22 21:38:17 -0700, David G Johnston wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote
> > > It's difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of process than
> > > committing a patch without any warning and without even *commenting*
> > > on the fact that clear objections to commit were made on a public
> > > mailing list. If that is allowed to stand, what can we assume other
> > > than that Stephen, at least, has a blank check to change anything he
> > > wants, any time he wants, with no veto possible from anyone else?
> >
> > I'm of a mind to agree that this shouldn't have been committed...but I'm
> not
> > seeing where Stephen has done sufficient wrong to justify crucifixion.
>
> I've not seen much in the way of 'crucifixion' before this email. And I
> explicitly *don't* think it's warranted. Also it's not happening.
>
>
I maybe got a little carried​ away with my hyperbole...

> > At this point my hindsight says a strictly declaratory statement of
> "reasons
> > this is not ready" combined with reverting the patch would have been
> > sufficient; or even just a "I am going to revert this for these reasons"
> > post. The difference between building support for a revert and
> gathering a
> > mob is a pretty thin line.
>
> The reason it's being discussed is to find a way to align the different
> views about when to commit stuff. The primary goal is *not* to revert
> the commit or anything but to make sure we're not slipping into
> procedures we all would regret. Which *really* can happen very
> easily. We're all humans and most of us have more than enough to do.
>

​So, the second option then...​and I'm sorry but "this should never have
been committed" tends to cause one to think it should therefore be reverted.

> > Though I guess if you indeed feel that his actions were truly heinous you
> > should also then put forth the proposal that his ability to commit be
> > revoked.
>
> I think *you* are escalating this to something unwarranted here by the
> way you're painting the discussion.
>

​Not everyone who reads -hackers knows all the people involved personally.
I had an initial reaction to these e-mails that I thought I would share,
nothing more. I'm not going to quote the different comments that led me to
my feeling that the response to this was disproportionate to the offense
but after a first pass - which is all many people would do - that is what I
came away with. Though you could say I fell into the very same trap by
reacting off my first impression...

David J.