From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: UCT (Re: pgsql: Update time zone data files to tzdata release 2019a.)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:24:07 -0400
Message-ID: <20190620182406.GD2480@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmobK3TVoxNJ0vCwvLcAjjaLvMLFWcbEpWA042bT9VdVWfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190620161400.6wtuybv64ihnfy6d@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20190620172838.GA21945@alvherre.pgsql>
<CA+TgmobK3TVoxNJ0vCwvLcAjjaLvMLFWcbEpWA042bT9VdVWfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:28 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > I suppose we could have a moratorium on commits starting from (say) EOB
> > Wednesday of the week prior to the release; patches can only be
> > committed after that if they have ample support (where "ample support"
> > might be defined as having +1 from, say, two other committers). That
> > way there's time to discuss/revert/fix anything that is deemed
> > controversial.
>
> Or we could have a moratorium on any change at any time that has a -1
> from a committer and a +1 from nobody.
What about a change that's already been committed but another committer
feels caused a regression? If that gets a -1, does it get reverted
until things are sorted out, or...?
In the situation that started this discussion, a change had already been
made and it was only later realized that it caused a regression. Piling
on to that, the regression was entwined with other important changes
that we wanted to include in the release.
Having a system where when the commit was made is a driving factor seems
like it would potentially reward people who pushed a change early by
giving them the upper hand in such a discussion as this.
Ultimately though, I still agree with Andres that this is something we
should act to avoid these situation and we shouldn't try to make a
policy to fit what's been a very rare occurance. If nothing else, I
feel like we'd probably re-litigate the policy every time since it would
likely have been a long time since the last discussion of it and the
specific circumstances will always be at least somewhat different.
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk, myon@debian.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: UCT (Re: pgsql: Update time zone data files to tzdata release 2019a.)
In-Reply-To: <20190620182406.GD2480@tamriel.snowman.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox