On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> The important thing about the current mechanism is that it ties the
> contributor's name to a feature in the only place where we currently list
> features on a time basis. So if I (for example) want to put on my resume
> that I contributed adding new values to an enum in the 9.1 release, there is
> a really easy way for someone to check that that's true, without having to
> search commit logs, which aren't always wonderfully reliable either. If you
> want a little finer granularity, let me offer the following categories as a
> way of opening up discussion:
>
> Author: contributed a significant portion of the code of a feature
> (say, over 25%)
> Contributor: made a significant contribution to the code (say 10% or
> more?), but less than that of an author.
> Reviewer: did a significant review of the code but not a significant
> code contribution.
>
> These are intended as broad guidelines, rather than something to be
> nitpicked and litigated, but you should get the idea.
Well, that would be fine, too. What I think is bizarre is that I got
credit for some things I was barely involved in (like SP-gist) and no
credit for other things I spent a LOT of time on (like security views
and some of KaiGai's other stuff), and similarly for other people.
Similarly, some things I am credited on involve very significant
contributions from other people and others are cases where I did
nearly all the work. I think it's weird to lump all those cases
together without any distinction.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
