On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:16:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > Well, that would be fine, too. What I think is bizarre is that I got
> > credit for some things I was barely involved in (like SP-gist) and no
> > credit for other things I spent a LOT of time on (like security views
> > and some of KaiGai's other stuff), and similarly for other people.
> > Similarly, some things I am credited on involve very significant
> > contributions from other people and others are cases where I did
> > nearly all the work. I think it's weird to lump all those cases
> > together without any distinction.
>
> Well, you know, these are *draft* release notes. Feel free to correct
> them anywhere you believe they are inaccurate.
Yep.
> I think the bigger issue here is that we don't seem to have consensus
> about whether to include reviewers' names. Bruce evidently thinks
> that's a good idea, else he wouldn't have done it, but I only recall one
> other person speaking in favor of it. Everybody else seems to think
> that it'll be too verbose.
There were 2-3 who liked the reviewer names. The bottom line is it is
easy to _remove_ names; it requires a lot of research to add them.
One creative idea would be to keep the reviewer names as-is, but trim
the release notes down to a single name just before final release.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
