On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 20:51, 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
+1.
> 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?
Well, listing the sponsor pretty much *is* selling advertising
space... Though I hope it was more than 99 cents ;)
We definitely need a good venue for advertising sponsorship of
features, but I don't think the commit message is that.
(Also, a lot of the commit messages would contain "feature sponsored
by redhat" for example - else we'd exclude those who invest a *lot* of
time and money in postgres while promoting those that spend money on
single and/or smaller things..)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/