On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com> wrote:
> On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and
>> their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
>> potential names per item.
>>
> Main authors only. Reviewers should be mentioned only in the commit log. If I
> coded a feature and Bruce got the idea worked in another patch (that is better
> then mine), I think only Bruce should be credited in release notes (but I
> could be mentioned in the commit log as the feature designer). However, if I
> posted a patch and Robert improved that patch using only 30% of my work, I
> should be credited (as coauthor) because he used a considerable part of my work.
Completely agreed. If we're going to include names in the release
notes, I agree that this is the way to do it, and I think it's what we
have done in prior releases.
I tend to err on the side of crediting people in the commit message
(of course, occasionally I forget someone who should have been
included), but I also try to make it clear by the phrasing whose code
got included and who contributed in some other way - e.g. by reporting
the problem, coming up with the original idea, or reviewing. I do
this in part because I assumed that we'd use that as the criteria for
including names in the release notes, as we have done in prior
releases. So if I write:
Euler Taveira, reviewed by Bruce Momjian, substantially rewritten by me
...then I expect that to turn up in the release notes as (Euler
Taveira, Robert Haas). If I write:
Euler Taveira, reviewed by Bruce Momjian, with minor cleanup by me
...then I expect that to turn up as (Euler Taveira). And if I write
something like:
Inspired by a patch from Euler Taveira. Review (in earlier versions)
by Bruce Momjian.
...then I expect that to turn up as (Robert Haas) or (Robert Haas,
Euler Taveira).
In doubtful cases, I think it's generally appropriate to err on the
side of crediting the person who was the original driving force behind
the patch, and also to err on the side of not crediting the committer.But if the committer chopped up the patch and
committedsomething
significantly different from the original, then they should be
credited - or blamed - for the result.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
