Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:49 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote: > > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > If people understand there aren't 13 performance improvements there are > > > at *least* 19+ that is a positive message to help people decide to > > > upgrade. > > > > Frankly I think the release notes are already too long. > > So why do we have stuff in there that the users will never see?
Which release note items? > We already have a release summary, so why summarise *some* of the detail > as well, but not all of it??? > > I see no reason to diminish yours, Heikki's or my own contributions, all > of which were in the area of performance, which people do care about. > None of the ones I mentioned were trivial patches, nor were their > effects small. I totally agree that we are unfair in how we give attribution in the release notes. There is no weight given to patch difficulty and people who produce user-invisible changes are much less likely to be mentioned in the release notes. I don't see any way to fix this that would not harm the release notes themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier email the release notes are designed to highlight user-visible changes in a user-understandable way. The mentioning of people who wrote the patches is merely a side-effect of that to give some credit, but it is a side-effect, not the main reason we mention something in the release notes. If people are concerned about the unfairness, and I understand that, the best solution is not to add more items to the release notes to be more fair, but to remove all names from release note items. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
