Re: PostgreSQL committer history?
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL committer history? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1141856804.20504.92.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL committer history? (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL committer history?
Re: PostgreSQL committer history? |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 17:07 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Committers go through the same approval process as non-committers No, they don't: committers can commit changes directly to CVS, whereas non-committers need to send them to -patches and have someone else review and apply them. That significantly lowers the barriers to modifying Postgres. Of course, there is still oversight by other developers: someone else is liable to review your code once it's in the tree, and it is considered bad practise for the non-core committers (e.g. me) to commit major patches without sending them to -patches first. But the fact remains that there is a significant difference in the workflow between committers and non-committers (particularly when it takes several weeks or months for a patch to be applied, as can sometimes be the case). > so it is only the physical commit action that separates committers from > non-committers, so for us, commit privileges aren't a good indicator. Sure they are: having the commit bit partly reflects the degree of trust that the developer has earned based on their prior contributions. The significance of having commit privileges depends on the project: in Postgres it typically takes a *long* time for an individual to become a committer, whereas other projects are more liberal about it. But that's a matter of degree: in both cases having the commit bit infers something about the project's trust in a contributor. -Neil
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: