On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 02:34, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> > On tor, 2011-06-30 at 15:09 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> >> Robert Hass (whose name I misspelled in the commit message above) just
>> >> mentioned to me (in an answer to my apologizing about it) that he
>> >> didn't think that mentioning sponsors for patch development was a good
>> >> idea.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think we have a policy for this, but I have done it for some
>> >> time now and nobody has complained, so I sort of assumed it was okay.
>> >> Besides, some of the people pouring the money in does care about it;
>> >> moreover, it provides a little incentive for other companies that
>> >> might also be in a position to fund development but lack the "peer
>> >> approval" of the idea, or a final little push.
>> >
>> > I think commit messages should be restricted to describing what was
>> > changed and who is responsible for it. ?Once we open it for things like
>> > sponsorship, what's to stop people from adding personal messages, what
>> > they had for breakfast, "currently listening to", or just selling
>> > advertising space in each commit message for 99 cents?
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> We should credit people somewhere, but not here.
>>
>> Otherwise, we'll be forced to add "Sponsored by RedHat", "Sponsored by
>> 2ndQuadrant" etc onto commit messages.
>
> Agreed. On one level I like the sponsor message, but on the other
> having "Sponsored by RedHat" on every Tom Lane item will get tiring.
> ;-)
>
> Can we add text if the employer is _not_ the feature sponsor?
That would be quite unfair to those who *do* employ committers....
Basically you'd get credit only if you didn't employ a committer.
This all becomes much easier if we keep the ads out of the commit
messages, and stick to the technical side there. And find another
venue for the other credit.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
