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
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 |