On 12/18/2014 05:36 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I tend to agree that we want to avoid complicated rules. The corollary
> to that is the concern Andrew raised about my earlier off-the-cuff
> proposal- how do we avoid debasing the value of being recognized as a PG
> contributor?
I find that less of a concern than recognizing all contributors. Let's
not go crazy, but if we're going to err, it should be on the side of
acknowledging *more* people, not less.
>
>> is how to keep track of people that helps to which level. I make a
>> point of crediting reviewers and code contributors in my commit
>> messages, but can you tell which ones of the following guys should make
>> it to these lists? I yanked this text from my commit
>> 73c986adde5d73a5e2555da9b5c8facedb146dcd:
>>
>> Reviewed to varying degrees by Michael Paquier, Andres Freund, Robert
>> Haas, Amit Kapila, Fujii Masao, Jaime Casanova, Simon Riggs, Steven
>> Singer, Peter Eisentraut
>>
>> I do agree that we need to give credit in some form, though. I'm just
>> saying can we please not put the responsibility on committers.
>
> Ugh, yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to have to work out some complex
> set of rules to be applied before each commit to define who can be
> considered a "reviewer". That said, most of the above list are
> committers and those who aren't should be recognized in some fashion, so
> I'm not sure that this is really a good example.
This really doesn't sound that difficult. If the committers include all
actual reviewers in the commit messages, then it will be fairly easy for
someone else (me) to go through and pick out the relative handful of
people who aren't already on the contributors list and check the level
of their contributions.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
