Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda@truviso.com> writes:
> A post-mortem from Josh Berkus [1] and a blog post from Magnus
> Hagander [2] seem to be the clearest in summing this up. As far as I
> can tell, the reason the main project requires patches was to change
> the *process* as little as possible in the course of changing the VCS
> plumbing.
That's *a* reason, but not the only one. Other large considerations are
that we consider that the act of submitting the patch to the mailing
list is evidence of intent to license the code under the Postgres
license, and further that this evidence is archived in the PG list
archives. If someone writes in and just provides a link, there is no
permanent record of what was submitted, or at least none under the
project's control. So we just have a warmer feeling about the
legalities and the traceability of contributions when it's done this
way.
Of course you're free to adopt your own policies for the JDBC project,
but I just wanted to point out that the above quote is not a good
summary of the reasons for the main project's policy.
regards, tom lane
