| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [Commitfest 2022-07] Begins Now |
| Date: | 2022-07-19 23:34:03 |
| Message-ID: | 09011009-ef7f-9819-5822-d82647e40f72@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/18/22 02:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Jul-18, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
>
>> Hi hackers,
>>
>>>> If someone put a lot of review into a patchset a few months ago, they
>>>> absolutely deserve credit. But if that entry has been sitting with no
>>>> feedback this month, why is it useful to keep that Reviewer around?
>>
>> As I recall, several committers reported before that they use
>> Reviewers field in the CF application when writing the commit message.
>> I would argue that this is the reason.
>
> Maybe we need two separate reviewer columns -- one for credits
> (historical tracking) and one for people currently reviewing a patch.
> So we definitely expect an email "soon" from someone in the second
> column, but not from somebody who is only in the first column.
+1
--
Joe Conway
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-07-19 23:59:48 | Re: Memory leak fix in psql |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-19 23:08:55 | Re: Convert planner's AggInfo and AggTransInfo to Nodes |