On 12/19/14, 6:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Could we establish an expectation that whoever sets a CF entry to "ready
> for committer" is responsible for reviewing the authors/reviewers lists
> and making sure that those fairly represent who should get credit? That
> would divide the labor a bit, and there would also be time enough for
> corrections if anyone feels slighted. The idea's not perfect since major
> contributions could still happen after that point; but I think the major
> risk is with the committer not remembering people who contributed early
> in the patch's life cycle, and we could certainly hope that such people
> get listed in the CF app entry.
Perhaps go even one step further and let a reviewer draft the actual commit message? That would further reduce
committerworkload, assuming the committer agrees with the draft commit message.
> Alternatively we could abandon the practice of using the commit log for
> this purpose, which could simplify making after-the-fact corrections.
> But then we'd have to set up some other recording infrastructure and work
> flow for getting the info into the release notes. That sounds like a lot
> of work compared to the probable value.
git does allow you to revise a commit message; it just makes downstream pulls uglier if the commit was already pushed
(seehttps://help.github.com/articles/changing-a-commit-message/). It might be possible to minimize or even eliminate
thatpain via git hooks.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
