On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:12:00PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:07 -0400 > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> 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. > > I am just someone that is thinking that maybe can review things...I am > not voting OK but I have a comment about your last email... > If people thinks (and with people I am not talking about myself but > regular committers and reviewers) think that option c is good, I think > that we should change the tool (or the way) that release notes are > done....I mean (and excuse my poor English) if people thing that it is > the way to go, we should make tools good enough for what people want > not change people thoughts cause tools are not good enough
Production of the release notes was not the problem; it was the text in the release notes. I don't see how we could modify the release note format. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers