Re: PostgreSQL committer history?

Let me say then that _ideally_ committers and non-committers should go
through the same process.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 17:07 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Committers go through the same approval process as non-committers
>
> No, they don't: committers can commit changes directly to CVS, whereas
> non-committers need to send them to -patches and have someone else
> review and apply them. That significantly lowers the barriers to
> modifying Postgres. Of course, there is still oversight by other
> developers: someone else is liable to review your code once it's in the
> tree, and it is considered bad practise for the non-core committers
> (e.g. me) to commit major patches without sending them to -patches
> first. But the fact remains that there is a significant difference in
> the workflow between committers and non-committers (particularly when it
> takes several weeks or months for a patch to be applied, as can
> sometimes be the case).
>
> > so it is only the physical commit action that separates committers from
> > non-committers, so for us, commit privileges aren't a good indicator.
>
> Sure they are: having the commit bit partly reflects the degree of trust
> that the developer has earned based on their prior contributions. The
> significance of having commit privileges depends on the project: in
> Postgres it typically takes a *long* time for an individual to become a
> committer, whereas other projects are more liberal about it. But that's
> a matter of degree: in both cases having the commit bit infers something
> about the project's trust in a contributor.
>
> -Neil
>
>

--
  Bruce Momjian   http://candle.pha.pa.us
  SRA OSS, Inc.   http://www.sraoss.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +