> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de]
> Sent: 08 October 2004 13:03
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] CVS Commit by andreas: disable
> function owner for pgsql < 8.0 [Tony
>
> so [reporter] only in changelog, not cvs?
No - use a different convention for reporter. It'll be easier with the
[Author] convention being applied consistently.
> It's not acceptable that even most trivial patches should lead to the
> necessity to re-contact the issuer. This could simply paralyze us. In
> this case, I'd opt to reject any posted patch until the author has
> expressively granted everything to anybody forever. As soon
> as a bug is
> reported, usually its fix is trivial (thus we don't need 3rd party
> patches) or the posted patch isn't complete and needs rework
> because it
> reveals more problems.
>
> The idea of contacting people years later is not feasible
> either, as I
> have to realize while trying to contact all our translators.
Maybe not, but if a court ever tells us to make a reasonable effort then
at least we can do so.
We already put the names in CVS for reporters and coders - I don't see
the problem in noting them in a consistent way - it's not like it's any
more work.
> Certainly, one day in the future usage of the character sequence
> wxTE_PASSWORD in a file ending with xrc might get patented. But that
> would be the very moment I'd be burning my computers and
> start growing
> sheep and potatoes. Lemon and sugar cane for distilling
> purposes might
> be a good idea as well...
Now you're just taking the p***. No, it's not patentable, but I can take
one look at the changelog or CVS log and know that Ivan contributed the
code, he didn't just report the problem. Let's just keep things
consistent 'just in case'.
Regards, Dave.
