Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue jun 23 00:13:34 -0400 2011:
> > \Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue jun 16 18:24:16 -0400 2011:
> > >
> > > > I should back up and explain that the reason for having usernames on
> > > > release feature items is not to give credit, but rather to assign blame
> > > > later, in case the features cause problems.
> > >
> > > I call BS on this. This PoV is perfect for justifying that sponsoring
> > > companies do not need to get credited, but it's not really the truth.
> > > Credit *is* given by having people listed in the release notes, whether
> > > you explicitly admit it or not. And pissing off contributors by taking
> > > it away is not something to be done lightly.
> >
> > I can tell you why _I_ added names to release note items starting 15
> > years ago. By putting names on the release note items, if a bug was
> > found in a release, I could easily know which developer to contact to
> > get it fixed.
>
> Well, I am not saying that that wasn't the reason you did it. I am only
> saying that it's not the only purpose that it ended up serving.
Agreed.
If we agree to make that credit goal overt, there is then little logic
to avoid company names in the release notes, except it is more overt
than it is now. It is then a question of the level of credit given ---
there is no logical prohibition.
My big point is that credit has grown out of a practical need to blame
developers, and we have never really made the "give credit" decision ---
it just happened. Rather than accept what we have now, I think we need
to decide on the credit goal and then its use in the release notes.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
