Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > > On tor, 2011-06-30 at 15:09 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Robert Hass (whose name I misspelled in the commit message above) just > >> mentioned to me (in an answer to my apologizing about it) that he > >> didn't think that mentioning sponsors for patch development was a good > >> idea. > >> > >> I don't think we have a policy for this, but I have done it for some > >> time now and nobody has complained, so I sort of assumed it was okay. > >> Besides, some of the people pouring the money in does care about it; > >> moreover, it provides a little incentive for other companies that > >> might also be in a position to fund development but lack the "peer > >> approval" of the idea, or a final little push. > > > > I think commit messages should be restricted to describing what was > > changed and who is responsible for it. ?Once we open it for things like > > sponsorship, what's to stop people from adding personal messages, what > > they had for breakfast, "currently listening to", or just selling > > advertising space in each commit message for 99 cents? > > Agreed. > > We should credit people somewhere, but not here. > > Otherwise, we'll be forced to add "Sponsored by RedHat", "Sponsored by > 2ndQuadrant" etc onto commit messages.
Agreed. On one level I like the sponsor message, but on the other having "Sponsored by RedHat" on every Tom Lane item will get tiring. ;-) Can we add text if the employer is _not_ the feature sponsor? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
