Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

> Well, reviewers on the bottom was just for 9.3 or 9.4, but the final
> goal was to get reviewers who modified patches credited with the release
> note items.  I asked how that was to be accomplished, and suggested that
> the only practical way would be for every committer to check the patch
> chain to see who else had modified the patch.  

Actually, it's not that hard.  Someone who modified the patch is going
to post it to -hackers, and we have that all in the archives.  Michael
and I are combing through the threads from CF1 now to get that list;
you're talking a few hours effort at most.

Of course, the actual patch author/committers need to verify that these
people actually did a lot of *useful* work, but that isn't much effort
from them.

> You suggested something about the commit-fest-manager doing it, and I
> couldn't see how that would help because it has to be in the commit
> message at the time the release notes are being written.  

Why?  You didn't provide *any* justification as to why the release notes
could not include input *in addition to* commit messages.  In fact, the
release notes *do* incorporate additional input, every year.

> You said our
> release note writing process was not written stone, and that we had to
> do whatever it takes to get those names on the items in the release
> notes.  At that point I pointed out that there was no consideration of
> the effort necessary to accomplish this, and that's how we got here
> today.

The only additional effort I'm asking of you, Bruce, is to accept
patches on the release notes.  That really doesn't seem like an
unreasonable request.

> Yes, that is somewhat easy in that we can get the names from the
> commit-fest app, but it doesn't include reviewers who replied via email
> but did not record their names on the commit-fest app.  I can tell you
> from my release note writing experience that a partial job in this area
> is likely to get lots of negative feedback from people who are
> excluded.

That's why it'll be a social process.  Next week I'll be posting a list
of patches and reviewers from CF1 to this list for other people to
correct and expand.  Just like the code itself, if everybody reviews the
list of reviewers, it'll be as good as we can get it.

> My point is this has to be done accurately.

It will be just as accurate as the current process, which, as you've
just pointed out, is not 100% accurate either.

> You have to distinguish between names at the end of the release notes,
> and names on release note items, and you have to tell us how this going
> to happen with reasonable effort.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.   I've already spent
more time arguing with you than it will take me to do the work.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com