| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest Update |
| Date: | 2022-03-31 14:11:41 |
| Message-ID: | 549603.1648735901@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> In my experience, re-applying an updated patch to a new CF is very easy.
> You can re-attach the existing discussion thread. The only information that
> can be lost is CF-specific fields like reviewer/author which is worth
> re-adding manually.
Yeah. In fact, it might be a good idea to intentionally *not* bring
forward the old reviewers list, as they may have lost interest.
This reminds me of a point I've been meaning to bring up: it seems to
often happen that someone adds their name as reviewer, but then loses
interest and doesn't do anything more with the patch. I think that's
problematic because people see that the patch already has a reviewer
and look for something else to do. Would it be feasible or reasonable
to drop reviewers if they've not commented in the thread in X amount
of time?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Coleman | 2022-03-31 14:13:57 | Re: Correct docs re: rewriting indexes when table rewrite is skipped |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-03-31 14:11:12 | Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index |