On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 11:55 AM Jacob Champion
<jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> From a mechanical perspective, that has clear advantages to me
> (especially with the de facto GitHub interpretation), but I think it'd
> collide with our practice of rewriting commits to maintain project
> voice. Maybe people could get used to that change, but I generally
> expect the Author in the Git metadata to be the *literal* author of
> the commit message.
Yes, I think that's right. I would have no problem us allowing pushing
of commits under the actual author's name if the commit is pushed
unchanged, but I rarely push anything unchanged and I think people
would be very quickly become unhappy if I started doing so. In the
rare cases where that would be warranted, the person usually just gets
made a committer anyway.
But really, that's a discussion for another time. The discussion here
is whether we're going to interpret the authorship information in the
existing commits in the way that the committers who created those
commits intended, or whether, as Bruce proposes, we're going to do
something else.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
