This is definitely true of Postgres, where backporting is relatively common (currently to 5 versions). Another cultural difference is that the narrative in our

This is definitely true of Postgres, where backporting is relatively common (currently to 5 versions). Another cultural difference is that the narrative in our commit log has a pretty strong voice. That consistency is valued above individual details about exactly who did what to produce the patch. If you want the details, we have extensive discussions of what lead to a patch on the pgsql-hackers mailing list. Our archives and threads are pretty well organized. We commonly refer back to threads 3-4 years old when discussing design decisions. I agree with many of the commenters that it would be nice to have all of the details that lead up to the final patch. Maybe something like a sub-commit history that is generally hidden, but possible to mine when desired. Here my ignorance of git is showing, as I don't know exactly what is possible.