Re: Commitfest Update

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jacob Champion
Тема Re: Commitfest Update
Дата
Msg-id 34b32cb2-a728-090a-00d5-067305874174@timescale.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Commitfest Update  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Commitfest Update  (Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>)
Re: Commitfest Update  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 3/31/22 07:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> ... 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.
> 
> Hmm, I tend to believe what's in the CF app, so maybe I'm dropping the
> ball on review credits :-(.  But there are various ways we could implement
> this.  One way would be a nagbot that sends private email along the lines
> of "you haven't commented on patch X in Y months.  Please remove your name
> from the list of reviewers if you don't intend to review it any more."

It seems there wasn't a definitive decision here. Are there any
objections to more aggressive pruning of the Reviewers entries? So
committers would need to go through the thread for full attribution,
moving forward.

If there are no objections, I'll start doing that during next Friday's
patch sweep.

--Jacob



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Zhihong Yu
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Aggregate leads to superfluous projection from the scan
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: doc: pg_prewarm add configuration example