On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@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
