| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 14:31:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZSBNhX0zCkG5T5KiQize9Aq4+ec+uqLcfBhm_+12MbQA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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?
In theory, this might cause someone who made a valuable contribution
to the discussion to not get credited in the commit message. But it
probably wouldn't in practice, because I at least always construct the
list of reviewers from the thread, not the CF app, since that tends to
be wildly inaccurate in both directions. So maybe it's fine? Not sure.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-03-31 14:32:27 | Re: [PATCH] Accept IP addresses in server certificate SANs |
| Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2022-03-31 14:30:41 | Unit tests for SLRU |