On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:59:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Is that what people want? Reviewers are easily removed. What about
committers who adjust the patch?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +