On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 02:36:42PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 02:24 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Based on existing workflow, we need those reviewer names in the commit
> > message. I don't see how the CommitFestManager can help with that.
>
> We can change the workflow. It's ours, there's no government agency
> mandating it.
>
> Anyway, the list from the CFM would just be to make sure nobody got
> missed; it's a double-check on the commit messages.
>
> >> The CFM needs to supply the list of "reviewers at the end" anyway.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Who else would do it?
>
> >> BTW, all of this I'm talking about the 9.4 release notes, where we have
> >> the opportunity to start from the first CF. There's the question of what
> >> to do about the *9.3* release notes, which I'll address in a seperate email.
> >
> > I am worried we are talking about 9.5 as we have already committed quite
> > a bit to 9.4.
>
> You're making a big deal out of what's a minor clerical detail. Don't
> let minutia which any secretary could take care of get in the way of an
> important project goal, that is, rewarding reviewers so that lack of
> reviewers stops being a major project bottleneck.
You are approaching this like it is a done deal and everyone agrees to
it.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
