> On 6 Apr 2026, at 15:57, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wow, I never thought that was a valid pattern, but I see a few PG 19 > commit messages using that, e.g.: > > Author: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> > 2025-08-12 [5f19d13df] libpq: Set LDAP protocol version 3 > > libpq: Set LDAP protocol version 3 > > Some LDAP servers reject the default version 2 protocol. So set > version 3 before starting the connection. This matches how the > backend LDAP code has worked all along. > > Co-authored-by: Andrew Jackson <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Pavel Seleznev <[email protected]> > Discussion: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAKK5BkHixcivSCA9pfd_eUp7wkLRhvQ6OtGLAYrWC%3Dk7E76LDQ%40mail.gmail.com > > Is that what people are using? A missing Author, and co-authors means > the committer is the author? Right? Shouldn't we document this? That > does give a unique use for Co-authored-by. My online checksums commit use a similar pattern, which is how I had interpreted our use of it. It lists myself and Magnus as authors with Tomas Vondra as co-auhor since he provided substantial changes to the patch. A missing Author tag should IMO always mean that the committer is the author. >> do think we have enough structured data that if we felt our attribution >> efforts >> were insufficient there are more things we could do. I’m not sure this is >> the >> most valuable way to expose this data but it’s a way, we likely don’t do >> enough >> promotion even with it, and it seems low maintenance. But maybe there is a >> cost/benefit discussion to be had here. > > I guess that is my question. I don't think the author names have the > same practical value now that we have commit links, but if people think > it still has _sufficient_ value, we should keep it --- that was my > question. I know from talking to several contributors that seeing their name next to the feature in the release notes is a huge motivator. -- Daniel Gustafsson
