Bruce Momjian <bruce@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.
regards, tom lane
