Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> > On tor, 2011-06-30 at 15:09 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Robert Hass (whose name I misspelled in the commit message above) just
> >> mentioned to me (in an answer to my apologizing about it) that he
> >> didn't think that mentioning sponsors for patch development was a good
> >> idea.
> >>
> >> I don't think we have a policy for this, but I have done it for some
> >> time now and nobody has complained, so I sort of assumed it was okay.
> >> Besides, some of the people pouring the money in does care about it;
> >> moreover, it provides a little incentive for other companies that
> >> might also be in a position to fund development but lack the "peer
> >> approval" of the idea, or a final little push.
> >
> > I think commit messages should be restricted to describing what was
> > changed and who is responsible for it. ?Once we open it for things like
> > sponsorship, what's to stop people from adding personal messages, what
> > they had for breakfast, "currently listening to", or just selling
> > advertising space in each commit message for 99 cents?
>
> Agreed.
>
> We should credit people somewhere, but not here.
>
> Otherwise, we'll be forced to add "Sponsored by RedHat", "Sponsored by
> 2ndQuadrant" etc onto commit messages.
Agreed. On one level I like the sponsor message, but on the other
having "Sponsored by RedHat" on every Tom Lane item will get tiring.
;-)
Can we add text if the employer is _not_ the feature sponsor?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +