On 01/28/2016 01:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
...
> One of the things I like about the current free-form approach is that
> you can indicate nuances, like:
>
> Person X reviewed an earlier version of this patch that was a lot
> different than this one.
> Person X reviewed this patch but didn't totally endorse it.
> Person X wrote the documentation for the patch, but none of the code.
> Person X wrote the vast bulk of this patch, even though there are some
> other authors.
>
> Should I just abandon the idea of trying to capture those details, or
> does this format contemplate a way to include them?
Why can't we do both? That is, have a free-form text with the nuances,
and then Reviewed-By listing the main reviewers? The first one is for
humans, the other one for automated tools.
>
> (Also an important question: Has Tom agreed to use this new format?
> Because I think that anything the rest of agree on that he's not
> prepared to endorse is not going to have much value.)
>
I can't speak for Tom, but I'm sitting fairly close to him and I haven't
heard any complains or even groaning.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
