From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pg Committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Tips on committing |
Date: | 2018-06-28 15:23:04 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYvuceKNh7_xHfOxTva63sbMYo4jQSe7MSuSTRGDsnEAg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> Apparently, there's a recent trend to credit patch authors using
>> "Co-authored-by". Should we use that too?
>> https://stackoverflow.com/a/41847267/
>
> I just put multiple people into Authors, with order roughly implying the
> amount of work. Don't really see a reason to split it off further?
One of the reasons that I've stuck with free-form text for denoting
authors rather than using tags is precisely so I can try to clarify
relative levels of contribution. I think being able to have multiple
Author: tags -- each such author being a major author -- and also
multiple Co-authored-by tags -- each such coauthor having made a
relatively small contribution -- would be an adequate amount of
distinction for almost all cases that I deal with.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-06-28 16:46:17 | Re: Tips on committing |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-06-28 15:21:42 | Re: Tips on committing |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-28 16:15:54 | Re: Server crashed with "TRAP: unrecognized TOAST vartag("1", File: "heaptuple.c", Line: 1490)" |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-06-28 15:21:42 | Re: Tips on committing |