Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > I don't have a problem with that, but I think core code committers > > > and www maintainers should be identified separately. > > > > Why? Then we have to also separate advocacy which is just as important > > and pgfoundry... as well as possibly a host of others. We all have our > > job in the community :). > > > > > On a closely > > > related note: last time I looked there was no way for anyone to > > > discover on the web site who the committers actually are. That would > > > also probably be useful. > > > > See Dave's response about core not wanting committers that easily > > identified. I actually recall this argument, basically there are times > > when commit access might be revoked temporarily etc... IIRC.. > > I believe the reason we don't publicize who is a committer is that we > have non-committers who do a lot more for the project. Commit rights > are usually given to people who do a lot of patches (perhaps small ones) > while people who develop larger patches are less likely to get commit > rights rapidly.
Of course the next question is why core is split out, especially since core's role is mostly for confidential company contacts and discipline. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
