On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 03:55:27PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 08/02/2013 03:18 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> 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. > > We already discussed it in the thread ad nauseum, and arrived at a > compromise which everyone could live with. So from that perspective, it > *is* a done deal, at least as far as 9.4 is concerned. At some point, > we need to make a decision and move forward, instead of rehashing the > same arguments forever. > > So if you're raising an objection to the compromise which many people > already agreed to, then raise an objection and back it up. But don't > sandbag.
There are three issues here: 1. What will best motive reviewers? 2. What is a reasonable effort to accomplish #1? 3. What is acceptable for release note readers? You seem to be only focused on #1, and you don't want to address the other items --- that's fine --- I will still be around if people lose interest or the system becomes unworkable. -- 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
