On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 04:39:49PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > OK, so the process is independent of commit activity. You realize that
> > if someone significantly modifies a patch we already have them in the
> > commit message as an author and on the release note item, right? So you
> > are really looking for reviews that modify the patch but not enough for
> > a committer to include their name in the commit message as an author.
>
> Oh, good point, I can look at the commit messages for where I don't need
> to bother. However, you pointed out that *during* CF1, the committers
> *didn't know* that they were supposed to include reviewers who did
> "major work" in the commit message. And they might miss them in the future.
Well, the clear way to do this would be to ask the committers if they
can reliably take on this job. You are right for CF1 they treated
reviewer patch modifications just like anyone else, but of course, the
larger question is whether you _should_ treat the reviewers different,
because other people are reviewers just not recorded as CF reviewers.
Another question is whether committers are going to recognize CF
reviewers vs. ordinary patch modifiers.
> > Anyone can commit patches to the release notes. I am unlikely to do it,
> > as I lack confidence in the process, for reasons already outlined.
>
> Bruce, you are steadfastly resistant to change of any kind.
Perhaps I am pessimistic, but I need to have confidence in the process,
and at this point, I don't, and considering how long it took for me to
get an explanation of the process, this seems prudent.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
