Re: Release Note Changes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Release Note Changes
Date
Msg-id 200712102226.lBAMQBR08337@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Release Note Changes  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Release Note Changes  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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?
> > 
> 
> No :). What is listed already in the release notes is what "you" think 
> is notable, which is why I mention the subjective below. What is cool to 
> you may not be cool to others etc... I am not saying you are doing a bad 
> job just that it is subjective.
> 
> Case in point I think the work that Stefan did for this release is 
> notable. I believe it is notable for several reasons.
> 
> 1. Usability
> 
> 2. Recognition (yes I am aware of the thoughts on that)
> 
> 3. It was grunt work that should have been done with the original patch 
> that didn't get done. Stefan picked up the ball and ran with it and 
> produced something that will make our product more usable for the end user.
> 
> Tom and you disagreed. I understand the reasoning and I don't actually 
> disagree with the thought process but I think the thought process is 
> flawed. I do not believe people only look at the release notes for "wow 
> cool". I believe they look at them to see who deserves kudos in this 
> release.

OK, that was clear to me.  You are saying based on the criteria we have
used in the past our system of feedback works (good), but the criteria
used isn't 100% agreed.

My point is that it isn't that I am too subjective and closed to
feedback on adding/removing items, but rather the policy used isn't open
for feedback;  but it really is.  Should we open discussion of changing
the policy?

--  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. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Release Note Changes
Next
From: Oleg Bartunov
Date:
Subject: Re: Release Note Changes