On 12/19/14, 6:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Could we establish an expectation that whoever sets a CF entry to "ready for committer" is responsible for reviewing the authors/reviewers lists and making sure that those fairly represent who should get credit? That would divide the labor a bit, and there would also be time enough for corrections if anyone feels slighted. The idea's not perfect since major contributions could still happen after that point; but I think the major risk is with the committer not remembering people who contributed early in the patch's life cycle, and we could certainly hope that such people get listed in the CF app entry.
Perhaps go even one step further and let a reviewer draft the actual commit message? That would further reduce committer workload, assuming the committer agrees with the draft commit message.
Alternatively we could abandon the practice of using the commit log for this purpose, which could simplify making after-the-fact corrections. But then we'd have to set up some other recording infrastructure and work flow for getting the info into the release notes. That sounds like a lot of work compared to the probable value.
git does allow you to revise a commit message; it just makes downstream pulls uglier if the commit was already pushed (see https://help.github.com/articles/changing-a-commit-message/). It might be possible to minimize or even eliminate that pain via git hooks. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
