Re: Draft release notes complete - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Draft release notes complete
Date
Msg-id 20120512132716.GB21473@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Draft release notes complete  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Credit in the release notes WAS: Draft release notes complete
Re: Draft release notes complete
Re: Draft release notes complete
List pgsql-hackers
In summary, names on release note items potentially have the following
beneficial effects:

*  Encouraging new developers/reviewers
*  Encouraging long-established developers
*  Showing appreciation to developers
*  Assisting future employment for developers
*  Helping developers get future funding
*  Assigning responsibility for features
*  Assigning blame for feature problems
*  Showing Postgres's increased developer base

Many of these goals has already been mentioned.  So the question is
which of these is important?  If we emphasize all of them, I am afraid
the name list for each item will be too long to be acceptable.  

How many names on a single item is ideal?  The activity of reviewers and
their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
potential names per item.

How much of a downside is having the names in the release notes?  For
example, we decided that company names shouldn't be on release note
items, so there is a case where we decided names were more of a negative
than a positive.  Are there other negatives?  Do other project release
notes have developer names?  How are these names perceived by our
general readers?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Draft release notes complete
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq URL syntax vs SQLAlchemy