| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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: | 2022-07-18 09:53:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20220718095304.g5ro2544jgpgvybu@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Álvaro Herrera
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2022-07-18 10:53:21 | Re: PATCH: Add Table Access Method option to pgbench |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-07-18 09:33:09 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson - v10 |