On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> I'm pretty puzzled by this. Other than our "agree to disagree and
>> defer to committer" position on the question of whether or not more
>> than one suggestion can come from a single RTE, which you were fine
>> with before [1], I have only restored the core/contrib separation to a
>> state recently suggested by Robert as the best and simplest all around
>> [2].
>> Did I miss something else?
> My point is: I am not sure I can be defined as a reviewer of this
> patch or take any credit in this patch review knowing that the latest
> version submitted is a simple rebase of the version I did my first
> review on. Hence, code speaking, this patch is in the same state as
> when it has been firstly submitted.
Of course you can. Time spent reviewing is time spent reviewing,
whether it results in changes to the patch or not.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
