Thread: git author vs committer
A while ago I wanted to cherry-pick a patch from master to a back-branch that was initially committed by someone else. That was rejected because our git server requires author==committer. I don't think that restriction is particularly useful and should be lifted. I'm not saying we should let anyone be an author, but within the pool of committers, I think we should let the mechanics of the git tools determine these fields.
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mié sep 12 11:21:36 -0300 2012: > A while ago I wanted to cherry-pick a patch from master to a back-branch > that was initially committed by someone else. That was rejected because > our git server requires author==committer. I don't think that > restriction is particularly useful and should be lifted. I'm not saying > we should let anyone be an author, but within the pool of committers, I > think we should let the mechanics of the git tools determine these > fields. +1. I had the same problem. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > A while ago I wanted to cherry-pick a patch from master to a back-branch > that was initially committed by someone else. That was rejected because > our git server requires author==committer. I don't think that > restriction is particularly useful and should be lifted. I'm not saying > we should let anyone be an author, but within the pool of committers, I > think we should let the mechanics of the git tools determine these > fields. Just to be clear, what you're saying is we want to change the policy that says "committer must be on list of approved committers && commiter==author" to "committer must be on list of approved committers && author must be on list of approved committers"? Assuming that's what you meant, there is no support for that in the scripts now, but if we agree that's a good thing it should be trivial to add it. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Just to be clear, what you're saying is we want to change the policy
> that says "committer must be on list of approved committers &&
> commiter==author" to "committer must be on list of approved committers
> && author must be on list of approved committers"?
Works for me.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 19:13 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Just to be clear, what you're saying is we want to change the policy > that says "committer must be on list of approved committers && > commiter==author" to "committer must be on list of approved committers > && author must be on list of approved committers"? Yes, that would be my request.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 19:13 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Just to be clear, what you're saying is we want to change the policy >> that says "committer must be on list of approved committers && >> commiter==author" to "committer must be on list of approved committers >> && author must be on list of approved committers"? > > Yes, that would be my request. Definitely sounds like a reasonable thing to do. So unless there are objections, I'll try to get around to getting that done not too long from now. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 19:13 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> Just to be clear, what you're saying is we want to change the policy >>> that says "committer must be on list of approved committers && >>> commiter==author" to "committer must be on list of approved committers >>> && author must be on list of approved committers"? >> >> Yes, that would be my request. > > Definitely sounds like a reasonable thing to do. So unless there are > objections, I'll try to get around to getting that done not too long > from now. Sorry, this took much longer than I had initially planned for, but at least it's been done now. Hopefully I didn't break anything else in the process :) --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/