On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: >> I'm pretty puzzled by this. Other than our "agree to disagree and >> defer to committer" position on the question of whether or not more >> than one suggestion can come from a single RTE, which you were fine >> with before [1], I have only restored the core/contrib separation to a >> state recently suggested by Robert as the best and simplest all around >> [2]. >> Did I miss something else? > My point is: I am not sure I can be defined as a reviewer of this > patch or take any credit in this patch review knowing that the latest > version submitted is a simple rebase of the version I did my first > review on. Hence, code speaking, this patch is in the same state as > when it has been firstly submitted.
Of course you can. Time spent reviewing is time spent reviewing, whether it results in changes to the patch or not. -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
