On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 06/24/2011 03:28 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: >> I expect that the correlation between commit and [various parties] is >> something that will need to take place outside git. > > Agreed on everything except the "Author" information that is already being > placed into each commit. The right data is already going into there, all it > would take is some small amount of tagging to make it easier to extract > programatically.
Yeah, I think we should seriously consider doing something about that. >> The existing CommitFest data goes quite a long ways towards capturing >> interesting information (with the likely exception of sponsorship); >> what it's missing, at this point, is a capture of what commit or >> commits wound up drawing the proposed patch into the official code >> base. > > The main problem with driving this from the CommitFest app is that not every > feature ends up in there. Committers who commit their own work are one > source of those. Commits for bug fixes that end up being notable enough to > go into the release notes are another. Yep. > I agree it would be nice if every entry marked as "Committed" in the CF app > included a final link to the message ID of the commit closing it. But since > I don't ever see that being the complete data set, I find it hard to justify > enforcing that work. And the ability to operate programatically on the > output from "git log" is a slightly easier path to walk down than extracting > the same from the CF app, you avoid one pre-processing step: extracting the > right entries in the database to get a list of commit IDs. Yep. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers