On 08/02/2013 01:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 04:43:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:18:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>>> Right cause if a reviewer ends up writing (or cleaning up) all the >>>> docs, I would say they deserve very close to equal credit. As an >>>> example. >>> >>> I can do whatever we agree to in the release notes. The big question >>> is whether committers can properly document these people. >> >> I don't see why not. Most of them, if not all, already do.
It is also my thinking that it is the job of the CommitFestManager to re-enforce this list by looking through the review list. If we do this on a per-CF basis, the workload won't become substantial; it's only if we wait until beta that it gets overwhelming. The CFM needs to supply the list of "reviewers at the end" anyway. > Most items had 2-3 names, and it was widely rejected. Of course, these > were all reviewers, not just those that changed the code. I did not > have details of which reviewers changed code and which just gave > feedback. I think "widely rejected" is an exaggeration; a few people objected stenuously. And the primary objection voiced was that people who did "it compiles!" shouldn't get equal credit with the original author of the patch. Which we're not proposing to do. BTW, all of this I'm talking about the 9.4 release notes, where we have the opportunity to start from the first CF. There's the question of what to do about the *9.3* release notes, which I'll address in a seperate email. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
