Horton

Re: Credit in the release notes WAS: Draft release notes complete

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, PeterEisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-05-13T01:59:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Expose track_iotiming information via pg_stat_statements.

  2. Rewrite GiST support code for rangetypes.

  3. Clean up a couple of box gist helper functions.

  4. Replace the "New Linear" GiST split algorithm for boxes and points with a

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:27:21PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> We seem to be in danger of overthinking this.

> Results have just shown it isn't a simple case.  It is unclear how
> important the reviewers were, and how much a committer rewrote the
> patch, and the significance of follow-on commits.

I'm wondering how come this has suddenly gotten so complicated.
We got through a dozen major releases without so much angst about
how to credit people.  I tend to think Andrew's right: we are
overthinking this, and are in danger of instituting a set of
bureaucratic rules that will result in endless arguments, without
really making anybody happier than before.

I haven't yet heard any very good argument for deviating from our
past practice, which is to credit just the principal author(s)
of each patch, not reviewers.

			regards, tom lane