Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL committer history?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dirk Riehle <dirk(at)riehle(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL committer history?
Date: 2006-03-09 01:33:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

> > Well, on what basis do you think -core hand out the commit bit?
> Something along the lines of frequency of work on the main trunk? Where
> it is more practical for a developer to just have commit than for them
> to funnel through core, core hands out the bit.

Four criteria AFAIK:
1) how long you've been with the community;
2) how many patches you submit regularly;
3) whether or not your code is good enough that it doesn't need editing;
4) whether you have known legal entanglements that might cause issues for 
the project.

Frankly, I don't know that Magnus has come up on Core, one way or another.  
I think one of the committers proposes someone when they get tired of 
checking in that person's patches.

Also, I can point out that there are a *lot* of people who don't have 
commit on the core distro but do have commit on key add-ons, such as JDBC, 
DBD::Pg, pgAdmin, or phpPgAdmin, which we need to make Postgres usable.   
I personally wouldn't want to draw a line between them.


Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2006-03-09 02:06:10
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL committer history?
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2006-03-09 01:09:49
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL committer history?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group