| From: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest Update |
| Date: | 2022-07-18 19:02:24 |
| Message-ID: | 0a042e06-057c-2e56-b00c-fb690240df64@timescale.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/18/22 06:13, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:05:51PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Maybe we should have two reviewers columns -- one for history-tracking
>> purposes (and commit msg credit) and another for current ones.
>
> Maybe. Or, the list of reviewers shouldn't be shown prominently in the list of
> patches. But changing that would currently break cfbot's web scraping.
I think separating use cases of "what you can currently do for this
patch" and "what others have historically done for this patch" is
important. Whether that's best done with more columns or with some other
workflow, I'm not sure.
It seems like being able to mark items on a personal level, in a way
that doesn't interfere with recordkeeping being done centrally, could
help as well.
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin Kalcher | 2022-07-18 19:03:35 | [PATCH] Introduce array_shuffle() and array_sample() |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-07-18 19:00:01 | Re: Commitfest Update |