Subject: pgsql: Some copy-editing of the Hot Standby documentation.

From: [email-masked] (Robert Haas)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:50:25 +0000 (UTC)

Log Message:
-----------
Some copy-editing of the Hot Standby documentation.

Thanks to Joshua Tolley for the review.

Modified Files:
--------------
    pgsql/doc/src/sgml:
        high-availability.sgml (r1.74 -> r1.75)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml?r1=1.74&r2=1.75)

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:59:31 +0100

> Log Message:

I rejected these changes. Please revoke.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:22:45 -0400

> I rejected these changes. Please revoke.

Do you have the ability to unilaterally reject changes of which others approve?

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.  The 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.  If 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.

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

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:26:51 -0700

> Do you have the ability to unilaterally reject changes of which others approve?

No. He doesn't.

Joshua D. Drake

-- 
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:33:08 +0100

> Do you have the ability to unilaterally reject changes of which others approve?

Other(s)?? You mean your unilateral approval of your own work?

You should not commit if you do not have consensus.

There was no strong approval, though I expressed clearly my strong
disapproval. Regrettably, I found your changes added almost nothing and
were in many ways questionable.

> that's good for the project.

So therefore we should accept everything *you* do in case there is a
fight? 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.

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:16:58 -0400

> 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.

> 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

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.