On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > The important thing about the current mechanism is that it ties the > contributor's name to a feature in the only place where we currently list > features on a time basis. So if I (for example) want to put on my resume > that I contributed adding new values to an enum in the 9.1 release, there is > a really easy way for someone to check that that's true, without having to > search commit logs, which aren't always wonderfully reliable either. If you > want a little finer granularity, let me offer the following categories as a > way of opening up discussion: > > Author: contributed a significant portion of the code of a feature > (say, over 25%) > Contributor: made a significant contribution to the code (say 10% or > more?), but less than that of an author. > Reviewer: did a significant review of the code but not a significant > code contribution. > > These are intended as broad guidelines, rather than something to be > nitpicked and litigated, but you should get the idea.
Well, that would be fine, too. What I think is bizarre is that I got credit for some things I was barely involved in (like SP-gist) and no credit for other things I spent a LOT of time on (like security views and some of KaiGai's other stuff), and similarly for other people. Similarly, some things I am credited on involve very significant contributions from other people and others are cases where I did nearly all the work. I think it's weird to lump all those cases together without any distinction. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
