> On 6 Apr 2026, at 15:57, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Wow, I never thought that was a valid pattern, but I see a few PG 19
> commit messages using that, e.g.:
>
> Author: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
> 2025-08-12 [5f19d13df] libpq: Set LDAP protocol version 3
>
> libpq: Set LDAP protocol version 3
>
> Some LDAP servers reject the default version 2 protocol. So set
> version 3 before starting the connection. This matches how the
> backend LDAP code has worked all along.
>
> Co-authored-by: Andrew Jackson <andrewjackson947@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Pavel Seleznev <pavel.seleznev@gmail.com>
> Discussion:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAKK5BkHixcivSCA9pfd_eUp7wkLRhvQ6OtGLAYrWC%3Dk7E76LDQ%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Is that what people are using? A missing Author, and co-authors means
> the committer is the author? Right? Shouldn't we document this? That
> does give a unique use for Co-authored-by.
My online checksums commit use a similar pattern, which is how I had
interpreted our use of it. It lists myself and Magnus as authors with Tomas
Vondra as co-auhor since he provided substantial changes to the patch.
A missing Author tag should IMO always mean that the committer is the author.
>> do think we have enough structured data that if we felt our attribution efforts
>> were insufficient there are more things we could do. I’m not sure this is the
>> most valuable way to expose this data but it’s a way, we likely don’t do enough
>> promotion even with it, and it seems low maintenance. But maybe there is a
>> cost/benefit discussion to be had here.
>
> I guess that is my question. I don't think the author names have the
> same practical value now that we have commit links, but if people think
> it still has _sufficient_ value, we should keep it --- that was my
> question.
I know from talking to several contributors that seeing their name next to the
feature in the release notes is a huge motivator.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
