On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:59:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:27:21PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> We seem to be in danger of overthinking this. > > > Results have just shown it isn't a simple case. It is unclear how > > important the reviewers were, and how much a committer rewrote the > > patch, and the significance of follow-on commits. > > I'm wondering how come this has suddenly gotten so complicated. > We got through a dozen major releases without so much angst about > how to credit people. I tend to think Andrew's right: we are > overthinking this, and are in danger of instituting a set of > bureaucratic rules that will result in endless arguments, without > really making anybody happier than before. > > I haven't yet heard any very good argument for deviating from our > past practice, which is to credit just the principal author(s) > of each patch, not reviewers.
Is that what people want? Reviewers are easily removed. What about committers who adjust the patch? -- 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
