Horton

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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, PeterEisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-05-13T04:42:41Z
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

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Is that what people want?  Reviewers are easily removed.

+1 from me.

> What about
> committers who adjust the patch?

It's usually pretty clear from the commit message whether the patch
was adjusted a little bit (in which case, there is no need to credit
the committer, any more than we'd credit Thom Brown for a patch in
which he found doc typos) or substantially (in which case the
committer should be credited).  If it's not clear, take your best
guess and someone can let you know if there's an issue.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company