On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > On 06/26/2013 09:14 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote: >>> >>> On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes? >>>> >>>> a) not at all >>>> b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom. >>>> c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch >>> >>> A weak preference for (c), with (b) running a close second. As others >>> have suggested, a review that leads to significant commitable changes >>> to the patch should bump the credit to co-authorship. >> >> As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes, and >> got lots of complaints, particularly because the line describing the >> feature now had many more names on it. >> >> In my opinion, adding reviewer names to each feature item might result >> in the removal of all names from features. >> >> A poll is nice for gauging interest, but many people who vote don't >> understand the ramifications of what they are voting on. >> > > > That's why I voted for b :-)
Yeah, with that in mind, I'd also switch to b. I wouldn't complain, but if it's been tried and failed... what can I say? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers