On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
I think it's important to clarify the distinction between when a committer is planning to look at the patch but maybe somebody else should too, and when the committer is planning to take exclusive responsibility for the patch and nobody else should bother touching it.
Suggesting additional work for the committers is never a good idea, and the tagging scheme you suggested seems pretty heavy for something that's not particularly common. How about you add an additional "Committer" field to the table, to be filled in when it's appropriate to do so and defaulting to "nobody" as usual. That would be handy in a lot of cases to track who is working on that part of patch application anyway. And in the special case you're trying to handle, I'd think listing their name under both reviewer/committer fields would be sufficient to deflect wasted review effort.
Also, if people date-stamp their comments (which will happen automatically if we get over to my new system), it makes it possible to get a sense of how long it's been since a certain state change took place.
The Mediawiki standard here is that you can use the various tilde macros to fill these in: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Signatures
I wonder if it's possible to include that expansion in the CommitFest templates? Even if it's not, we could strongly encourage its use. When you're using the page editor, one of the little buttons at the top is "Your signature with timestamp", and it expands to "--~~~~"; that makes it easy to remember this particular bit.
-- * Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
