Re: Online enabling of checksums

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >>At least this patch was posted on the lists before commit, unlike many
> >>others from many different people. And AFAIK there has never been such
> >>a
> >>rule.
>
> The rules cannot possibly anticipate every situation or subtlety. The
> letter of the law is a slightly distinct thing to its spirit.
>
> > The more debatable a decision is, the more important it IMO becomes to
> give people a chance to object. Don't think there needs to be a hard rule
> to always announce an intent to commit.
>
> +1
>
> Andres' remarks need to be seen in the context of the past couple of
> weeks, and in the context of this being a relatively high risk patch
> that was submitted quite late in the cycle.
>

I would argue that this is a pretty isolated patch. A large majority of the
code is completely isolated from the rest. And I would argue that this
reduces the risk of the patch substantially.

(And yes, we've noticed it's failing in isolationtester on a number of
boxes -- Daniel is currently investigating)

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>