On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:04 -0400
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As for annotating the commit messages, I think something like:
>>
>> Reporter: Sam Jones
>> Author: Beverly Smith
>> Author: Jim Davids
>> Reviewer: Fred Block
>> Reviewer: Pauline Andrews
>
> Can I just toss in one little note from the sidelines? Various other
> projects (Linux kernel at the top of the list) have adopted tags like
> Reported-by and Reviewed-by for metadata like this. (Authorship lives in
> git itself, with additional authors sometimes ambiguously indicated with
> additional Signed-off-by lines). There are tools out there which make use
> of those tags now. It would seem that, in the absence of a reason to make
> up your own tags, it might make sense to be consistent with other projects?
I'm not averse to inventing our own tags that fit our particular
needs, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to maximize the
intersection of what we do with what other people do.
I think the biggest difference is probably that we (or at least I)
don't really like the idea of Signed-off-by, and certainly not as a
way of ambiguously indicating additional authors. Many patches are
collaborative efforts, and the metadata should make that clear.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
