On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For the record, I typically construct the list of reviewers by reading
>> over the thread and adding all the people whose names I find there in
>> chronological order, excluding things that are clearly not review
>> (like "Bumped to next CF.") and opinions on narrow questions that
>> don't indicate that any code-reading or testing was done (like "+1 for
>> calling the GUC foo_bar_baz rather than quux_bletch".) I saw that you
>> copied Corey on the original email, but I see no posts from him on the
>> thread, which is why he didn't get included in the commit message.
>
> I did credit him in my own proposed commit message. I know that it's
> not part of your workflow to preserve that, but I had assumed that
> that would at least be taken into account.
Ah. Sorry, I didn't look at that. I try to remember to look at
proposed commit messages, but not everyone includes them, which is
probably part of the reason I don't always remember to look for them.
Or maybe I just have failed to adequately develop that habit...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company