Re: RLS feature has been committed
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RLS feature has been committed |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZmL1fr8JznmsdNERXLMa_Pdmzz3Ud9HKjmHGJkAe79iw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RLS feature has been committed (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: RLS feature has been committed
(David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Re: RLS feature has been committed (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) Re: RLS feature has been committed (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >> This patch has been pushed in a clear violation of established policy. >> >> Fundamental pieces of the patch have changed *after* the commitfest >> started. And there wasn't a recent patch in the commitfest either - the >> entry was moved over from the last round without a new patch. It didn't >> receive independent review (Robert explicitly said his wasn't a full >> review). It wasn't marked ready for committer. The intention to commit >> wasn't announced publically. There were *clear* and unaddressed >> objections to committing the patch as is, by a committer (Robert) >> nonetheless. > > I have no reason to doubt your version of events here Fortunately, you don't have to take anything on faith. This is a public mailing list, and the exact sequence of events is open to inspection by anyone who cares to take a few minutes to do so. You can easily verify whether my statement that I asked Stephen twice to hold off committing it is correct or not; and you can also verify the rest of the history that Andres and I recounted. This is all there in black and white. > Should RLS be reverted, and revisited in a future CF? IMHO, that would be entirely appropriate. I don't have any idea whether the patch has remaining bugs, design issues, or security flaws - and neither does anyone else since the normal review process was bypassed - but I do feel that Stephen's feelings of being chastised aren't worth the bits they are printed on. We're here to develop software together, not to talk about our feelings; and the quality of the software we produce depends on our willingness to follow a set of procedures that are or should be well-understood by long-time contributors, not on our emotional states. 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? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: