On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 03:55:27PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 03:18 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> We already discussed it in the thread ad nauseum, and arrived at a
> compromise which everyone could live with. So from that perspective, it
> *is* a done deal, at least as far as 9.4 is concerned. At some point,
> we need to make a decision and move forward, instead of rehashing the
> same arguments forever.
>
> So if you're raising an objection to the compromise which many people
> already agreed to, then raise an objection and back it up. But don't
> sandbag.
There are three issues here:
1. What will best motive reviewers?
2. What is a reasonable effort to accomplish #1?
3. What is acceptable for release note readers?
You seem to be only focused on #1, and you don't want to address the
other items --- that's fine --- I will still be around if people lose
interest or the system becomes unworkable.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
