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 :-)
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
