Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

> +1 to remove via; who actually pushed the change is (or should be) > unimportant, I don't care much for credit and am pretty much indifferent to any of these options. The way I see it is that 'via' is not much of a credit but a *responsibility* -- the committer should have reviewed the change

Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

+1 to remove via if it's a stupid merge. But there are cases where the patch is taken and improved by the committer. In that case the committer should be added with a comma only. Uwe Am June 12, 2018 7:05:57 PM UTC schrieb Gus Heck : >FWIW As a non-committer contributor I don't mind the

Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

FWIW As a non-committer contributor I don't mind the "via". Seems legit to give the committer some credit for their review and merging work. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Michael McCandless < luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > +1 to remove via; who actually pushed the change is (or should

Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

+1 to remove via; who actually pushed the change is (or should be) unimportant, and is easily derived from git history if we really do ever need it. Your ideas will go further if you don't insist on going with them ;) Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:47

Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

I agree with Mark that it is a huge and important part of keeping Lucene/Solr a welcoming community, that the existing committers take time to guide contributors. Keeping the "via" part of the changelog also makes it very easy to spot potential candiates for committership, and avoid the "I

Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

I agree with Marks position on this, the information of who committed has significant value. Joel Bernstein http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > I have the same opinion as last time. Taking ownership of actually > committing something to the code

Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

I have the same opinion as last time. Taking ownership of actually committing something to the code base is an important attribution and that is why it has been included in CHANGES. I don't agree that it takes away credit at all - via means the commit went through you, which is an accurate

Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

I don't have much of an opinion about "via" one way or the other, however I think we should avoid using the mental model of authorship for CHANGES.txt. We've generally been listing people who made meaningful contributions to the patch, including sometimes the person who opened the issue for

Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

+1 to Robert’s suggestion > On 5 Jun 2018, at 09:03, Adrien Grand > wrote: > > +1 to remove the name of the pusher from the changelog > > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 06:29, Erick Erickson > a écrit : > Robert: > > I don't have strong

Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

+1 to remove the name of the pusher from the changelog Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 06:29, Erick Erickson a écrit : > Robert: > > I don't have strong feelings either way. Personally I use "via" to > indicate that I didn't have much to do with the hard parts, I just was > the "committer fingers". If

Re: discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

Robert: I don't have strong feelings either way. Personally I use "via" to indicate that I didn't have much to do with the hard parts, I just was the "committer fingers". If I've been more involved I just add my name as a co-contributor (last). Basically it's a question of "how much credit do I

discuss: stop adding 'via' from CHANGES.txt entries (take two)

I raised this issue a few years ago, and no consensus was reached [1] I'm asking if we can take the time to revisit the issue. Back then it was subversion days, and you had "patch-uploaders" and "contributors". With git now, I believe the situation is even a bit more extreme, because the