On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jonathan Corbet <cor...@lwn.net> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:04 -0400 > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As for annotating the commit messages, I think something like: >> >> Reporter: Sam Jones >> Author: Beverly Smith >> Author: Jim Davids >> Reviewer: Fred Block >> Reviewer: Pauline Andrews > > Can I just toss in one little note from the sidelines? Various other > projects (Linux kernel at the top of the list) have adopted tags like > Reported-by and Reviewed-by for metadata like this. (Authorship lives in > git itself, with additional authors sometimes ambiguously indicated with > additional Signed-off-by lines). There are tools out there which make use > of those tags now. It would seem that, in the absence of a reason to make > up your own tags, it might make sense to be consistent with other projects?
I'm not averse to inventing our own tags that fit our particular needs, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to maximize the intersection of what we do with what other people do. I think the biggest difference is probably that we (or at least I) don't really like the idea of Signed-off-by, and certainly not as a way of ambiguously indicating additional authors. Many patches are collaborative efforts, and the metadata should make that clear. -- 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