| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dirk Riehle <dirk(at)riehle(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL committer history? |
| Date: | 2006-03-08 23:52:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1141861947.20504.104.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 17:52 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> I think Bruce's take is more accurate. For example, look at folks like Dave,
> Magnus, Teodor, or myself; none of us have commit (afaik) but I would like to
> think we would all be trusted not to screw things up if we had it.
Teodor does have the commit bit, but only for GiST, tsearch, and related
code.
It's not up to me, but to be frank I *wouldn't* trust you, Dave, or
Teodor with the commit bit for the bulk of the Postgres tree because
IMHO you haven't modified the tree enough to deserve that degree of
trust. (I'd personally be happy giving Magnus the commit bit, but core
tend to be conservative about handing it out.)
> OTOH I guess there might be more people like you who look at it like a trust
> thing, and I just haven't been told about this since I'm not trusted. :-)
Well, on what basis do you think -core hand out the commit bit?
> Given the amount of access I have to other things, I doubt that's the case
> though.
Access to other things is irrelevant: we're talking about the right to
directly change the source code. There is no reason why the people who
are trusted to maintain the website ought to be trusted to commit
unreviewed patches, or vice versa.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-03-08 23:55:44 | Re: PostgreSQL committer history? |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2006-03-08 22:52:29 | Re: PostgreSQL committer history? |