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

Re: [HACKERS] Time to update list of contributors

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Time to update list of contributors
Date: 2007-11-28 17:34:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-www
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:53:43 +0000
> Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:27:42 +0000
>>> Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>>>> Why not Hackers? Noone is a 'member' of anything except core or
>>>> mayber the web/infrastructure team.
>>> Define Hacker. And I could argue that some are members of PGDG. 
>> Says he who only the other day muttered something about how PGDG
>> wasn't a defined entity :-)
> I believe the term was "legal" entity (If it wasn't that is what I
> should of wrote). Which is true. We are however a "community".
>>> What
>>> about those who provide just as much time and energy in advocacy as
>>> others do on -heackers? What about people that are working on
>>> external projects only such as Slony or PLproxy?
>> The latter are still hackers using the definition we're likely to
>> agree on (ie. not a cracker). Both groups are 'Contributors' though.
>> Maybe just use 'Regular contributors' and 'Occasional contributors'.
>> Or major and minor. Or something entirely different.
> Now that seems reasonable. 
> Core
> Regular contributors
> Occasional contributors
> Past contributors
> Core and Regular should be on the same page.
> Occasional and Past on another? (At a minimum we can't have Past on
> the same page it would get too large).

Man, I'm glad I DB:ified that page a couple of months back :-P

Do we really need separate pages, though? We already have the
distinction that major developers (in your case, that would be Regular
ones, I guess) are listed in full details, and other contributors are
just listed with name.

I still think we should keep "Hackers Emeritus" (you may rename it). The
people on that list are way more than just "past contributors" IMHO.

> I don't like major and minor because a one line patch that saves
> someone from loosing all there data is a major contribution but we may
> never hear from the person again.

We don't generally add anybody who just provides a single patch, ever.
They go in the release notes, but we only add people who've been around
for a while to this list at all. I think, at least, but as has already
been told there are no strict policies...


In response to


pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Devrim GÜNDÜZDate: 2007-11-28 17:37:52
Subject: Re: Put conova in their place
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-11-28 17:26:49
Subject: Re: lists topic change

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Trevor TalbotDate: 2007-11-28 17:38:33
Subject: Re: String encoding during connection "handshake"
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-11-28 17:32:18
Subject: Re: pgindent and multiline string constants

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