On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 02:17:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:10:23AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> What I would be opposed to is continuing to list the original authors in > >> the release notes and putting reviewers, testers, co-authors, etc. on a > >> separate web page. If we're gonna move people, let's move *all* of > >> them. Also, it needs to be on something more trustworthy than the wiki, > >> like maybe putting it at postgresql.org/developers/9.3/ > > > I think you will have trouble keeping those two lists synchronized. I > > think you will need to create a release note document that includes all > > names, then copy that to a website and remove the names just before the > > release is packaged. > > Unless Bruce is doing more work than I think he is, the attribution data > going into the release notes is just coming from whatever the committer > said in the commit log message. I believe that we've generally been
Yes, that's all I do. "Bruce is doing more work than I think he is" gave me a chuckle. ;-) > careful to credit the patch author, but I'm less confident that everyone > who merited a "review credit" always gets mentioned --- that would > require going through the entire review thread at commit time, and I for > one can't say that I do that. > > If we're going to try harder to ensure that reviewers are credited, > it'd probably be better to take both the commit log and the release > notes out of that loop. I assume you are suggesting we _not_ use the commit log and release notes for reviewer credit. Good point; we might be able to pull that from the commit-fest app, though you then need to match that with the release note text. -- 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
