| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PeterEisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Credit in the release notes WAS: Draft release notes complete |
| Date: | 2012-05-13 01:59:12 |
| Message-ID: | 19225.1336874352@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:27:21PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> We seem to be in danger of overthinking this.
> Results have just shown it isn't a simple case. It is unclear how
> important the reviewers were, and how much a committer rewrote the
> patch, and the significance of follow-on commits.
I'm wondering how come this has suddenly gotten so complicated.
We got through a dozen major releases without so much angst about
how to credit people. I tend to think Andrew's right: we are
overthinking this, and are in danger of instituting a set of
bureaucratic rules that will result in endless arguments, without
really making anybody happier than before.
I haven't yet heard any very good argument for deviating from our
past practice, which is to credit just the principal author(s)
of each patch, not reviewers.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-05-13 02:35:21 | Re: Credit in the release notes WAS: Draft release notes complete |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-13 01:48:01 | WaitLatchOrSocket API needs more thought for socket error conditions |