On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 05:30:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I will make the adjustments outlined below as soon as I can.
Done and committed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:37:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Euler Taveira <eu...@timbira.com> wrote: > > > On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and > > >> their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of > > >> potential names per item. > > >> > > > Main authors only. Reviewers should be mentioned only in the commit log. > > > If I > > > coded a feature and Bruce got the idea worked in another patch (that is > > > better > > > then mine), I think only Bruce should be credited in release notes (but I > > > could be mentioned in the commit log as the feature designer). However, > > > if I > > > posted a patch and Robert improved that patch using only 30% of my work, I > > > should be credited (as coauthor) because he used a considerable part of > > > my work. > > > > Completely agreed. If we're going to include names in the release > > notes, I agree that this is the way to do it, and I think it's what we > > have done in prior releases. > > > > I tend to err on the side of crediting people in the commit message > > (of course, occasionally I forget someone who should have been > > included), but I also try to make it clear by the phrasing whose code > > got included and who contributed in some other way - e.g. by reporting > > the problem, coming up with the original idea, or reviewing. I do > > this in part because I assumed that we'd use that as the criteria for > > including names in the release notes, as we have done in prior > > releases. So if I write: > > > > Euler Taveira, reviewed by Bruce Momjian, substantially rewritten by me > > > > ...then I expect that to turn up in the release notes as (Euler > > Taveira, Robert Haas). If I write: > > > > Euler Taveira, reviewed by Bruce Momjian, with minor cleanup by me > > > > ...then I expect that to turn up as (Euler Taveira). And if I write > > something like: > > > > Inspired by a patch from Euler Taveira. Review (in earlier versions) > > by Bruce Momjian. > > > > ...then I expect that to turn up as (Robert Haas) or (Robert Haas, > > Euler Taveira). > > > > In doubtful cases, I think it's generally appropriate to err on the > > side of crediting the person who was the original driving force behind > > the patch, and also to err on the side of not crediting the committer. > > But if the committer chopped up the patch and committed something > > significantly different from the original, then they should be > > credited - or blamed - for the result. > > > > -- > > Robert Haas > > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > -- > 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 -- 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
