DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=Qm+jyjNpg40N43Tf+Na5jGI69g3WHVjgjDNY3YSg7IYC9dvx1hmaNOHSNuCbXpqlSJ
	eSu0Kt3BtixjXrIW29mT7taa4VLPAmqZYPR9JxHNTJsFeAS38Tw+NtYW9uiK6KaRwSUO
	GOBlyA+IeLUIhgHO/TUbab1BRwZxkKTCttxM4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1277422388.25074.11334.camel@ebony>
References: <20100624195025.AAC327541D4@cvs.postgresql.org>
	<1277413171.25074.10033.camel@ebony>
	<AANLkTill1PXsCQXPJG4KVefawnRcOYKIdqJIj7fUPWje@mail.gmail.com>
	<1277422388.25074.11334.camel@ebony>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:16:58 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTilZaQ_xNzAzsoaJbwk17K8pSdNQocoifGf4Mx2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Some copy-editing of the Hot Standby
	documentation.
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Other(s)?? You mean your unilateral approval of your own work?

Actually, I was referring to Joshua Tolley's review.  He was kind
enough to take the time to provide specific feedback, which I
incorporated into the patch.  And if you need it to be plural, then
yes, I approve of my own work, too.

>> I think it's not very helpful to be trying to reject changes that
>> people (yes, including me) take the time to make to the Hot Standby
>> documentation. =A0The tone and style of that page do not match the tone
>> and style of other parts of our documentation, and frankly I think it
>> needs a lot more work than what I just did. =A0If every word that gets
>> moved is going to turn into an argument, then no one will be willing
>> to take the time to make any improvements at all, and I don't think
>> that's good for the project.
>
> So therefore we should accept everything *you* do in case there is a
> fight?

No.  So, therefore, when I post a patch, you should suggest specific
ways that it can be improved, rather than trying to veto it outright.
Perhaps unlike you, I accept that the work that I submit to the
community will be changed, sometimes radically, and occasionally in
ways that I don't agree with; but for the most part I know that it
will be made stronger.  And when I don't agree with a change, I take
the time to provide specific feedback which clearly explains why I
don't agree with it and what I think would make it better.

> Perhaps you will agree to accept everything other people do as
> well to encourage improvement? I don't really believe you want your
> comments to be applied back to you, do you?
>
> There is currently much documentation missing, especially around
> Streaming Rep. It would be much better to spend your time adding that
> than to contrive fights over changes that people disagreed with.

If you think that I spent time copy-editing the documentation you
wrote so as to contrive a fight, you are mistaken.  As for what it
would be best for me to spend my time on, I reserve the right to make
that decision myself.  However, I have been known to take other
people's suggestions, including yours, when they are not presented as
an attack on the work in which I've chosen to invest my time.

--=20
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company