Re: PostgreSQL committer history?

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
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 22:52:29
Message-ID: 200603081752.29486.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On Wednesday 08 March 2006 17:26, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 17:07 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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.

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.

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. :-)
Given the amount of access I have to other things, I doubt that's the case
though. Or at least I'll keep telling myself that.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2006-03-08 23:52:27 Re: PostgreSQL committer history?
Previous Message Chris Mair 2006-03-08 22:33:46 Re: OraToPg WAS: new project submissions on