Re: Commitfest problems
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Commitfest problems |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5494F872.6000105@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Commitfest problems (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Commitfest problems
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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 committerworkload, 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 (seehttps://help.github.com/articles/changing-a-commit-message/). It might be possible to minimize or even eliminate thatpain via git hooks. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: