On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 02:36:42PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 08/02/2013 02:24 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Based on existing workflow, we need those reviewer names in the commit > > message. I don't see how the CommitFestManager can help with that. > > We can change the workflow. It's ours, there's no government agency > mandating it. > > Anyway, the list from the CFM would just be to make sure nobody got > missed; it's a double-check on the commit messages. > > >> The CFM needs to supply the list of "reviewers at the end" anyway. > > > > Why? > > Who else would do it? > > >> BTW, all of this I'm talking about the 9.4 release notes, where we have > >> the opportunity to start from the first CF. There's the question of what > >> to do about the *9.3* release notes, which I'll address in a seperate > >> email. > > > > I am worried we are talking about 9.5 as we have already committed quite > > a bit to 9.4. > > 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. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers