Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >> I assumed the white paper would have proper attribution. > > > > Right, but is the white paper going to be thorough to mention _all_ > > changes? > > > > Hmmm good question which gets back to where we started :). My very first > thought on all of this was that we would list all notable changes but > that we wouldn't mention anyone's name.
Isn't that listing what is already in the release notes? > Then, we would have a "Who contributed to this release" section that > just listed names without attribution to the specific feature. IMO, that > is the only "fair" way. > > I realize that notable is subjective. > > Here is the deal :). I think as long as a single person is making the > decision as to what goes and stays, there will always be friction. > Perhaps it is time for a "release team"? Odd numbers only, +1/-1 voting > etc... I don't know maybe that is too much. Not really. We can have anyone suggest changes to the release notes up until release, and there already have been tons of user-suggested changes. The issue is if I disagree with a suggested change, and no one else backs up the suggested change, it gets rejected, just like the community patch process works. -- 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
