| From: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Rodrigo Gonzalez <rjgonzale(dot)lists(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll |
| Date: | 2013-06-26 22:40:25 |
| Message-ID: | 51CB6DD9.4040901@catalyst.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27/06/13 07:12, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 12:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> See the entry for foreign key locks:
>>
>> Prevent non-key-field row updates from locking foreign key rows (Álvaro
>> Herrera, Noah Misch, Andres Freund, Alexander Shulgin, Marti Raudsepp)
>>
>> I am the author of most of the code, yet I chose to add Noah and Andres
>> because they contributed a huge amount of time to reviewing the patch,
>> and Alex and Marti because they submitted some code. They are all
>> listed as coauthors, which seems a reasonable compromise to me.
> What about the idea that reviewers who do code revision work, like in
> your FK patch, get listed after the original patch author with the
> patch, and reviewers do more lightweight reviews get listed at the
> bottom of the release notes? Seems fair to me.
>
I note reviewers are usually (?) mentioned in the commits to the git
repo - so maybe it is enough to list them at the bottom of the release
notes only?
Regards
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-06-26 22:42:56 | Testing Cascading Replication |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-06-26 22:30:05 | Re: Spin Lock sleep resolution |