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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers