Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >> I assumed the white paper would have proper attribution.
> >
> > Right, but is the white paper going to be thorough to mention _all_
> > changes?
> >
>
> Hmmm good question which gets back to where we started :). My very first
> thought on all of this was that we would list all notable changes but
> that we wouldn't mention anyone's name.
Isn't that listing what is already in the release notes?
> Then, we would have a "Who contributed to this release" section that
> just listed names without attribution to the specific feature. IMO, that
> is the only "fair" way.
>
> I realize that notable is subjective.
>
> Here is the deal :). I think as long as a single person is making the
> decision as to what goes and stays, there will always be friction.
> Perhaps it is time for a "release team"? Odd numbers only, +1/-1 voting
> etc... I don't know maybe that is too much.
Not really. We can have anyone suggest changes to the release notes up
until release, and there already have been tons of user-suggested
changes. The issue is if I disagree with a suggested change, and no one
else backs up the suggested change, it gets rejected, just like the
community patch process works.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
