On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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.

I'm not objecting to or endorsing any specific proposal, just asking
what we want to do about this.  I think the trick if we do it that way
will be to avoid having it seem like too much duplication, but there
may be a way to manage that.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to