Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:24:07 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>,
	Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: UCT (Re: pgsql: Update time zone data files to tzdata release
 2019a.)
Message-ID: <20190620182406.GD2480@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20190620161400.6wtuybv64ihnfy6d@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20190620172838.GA21945@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CA+TgmobK3TVoxNJ0vCwvLcAjjaLvMLFWcbEpWA042bT9VdVWfQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hh4JweDS6K/aOlXZ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmobK3TVoxNJ0vCwvLcAjjaLvMLFWcbEpWA042bT9VdVWfQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--hh4JweDS6K/aOlXZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.
>=20
> 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

--hh4JweDS6K/aOlXZ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=IGy/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--hh4JweDS6K/aOlXZ--