On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:13:32 -0400
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:12:00PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:07 -0400
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > > > On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> > > > > How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
> > > > >
> > > > > a) not at all
> > > > > b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at
> > > > > the bottom. c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
> > > >
> > > > A weak preference for (c), with (b) running a close second. As
> > > > others have suggested, a review that leads to significant
> > > > commitable changes to the patch should bump the credit to
> > > > co-authorship.
> > >
> > > As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes,
> > > and got lots of complaints, particularly because the line
> > > describing the feature now had many more names on it.
> >
> > I am just someone that is thinking that maybe can review things...I
> > am not voting OK but I have a comment about your last email...
> > If people thinks (and with people I am not talking about myself but
> > regular committers and reviewers) think that option c is good, I
> > think that we should change the tool (or the way) that release
> > notes are done....I mean (and excuse my poor English) if people
> > thing that it is the way to go, we should make tools good enough
> > for what people want not change people thoughts cause tools are not
> > good enough
>
> Production of the release notes was not the problem; it was the text
> in the release notes. I don't see how we could modify the release
> note format.
>
Well...
Checking release notes for 9.2.4
you have Fix insecure parsing of server command-line switches
(Mitsumasa Kondo, Kyotaro Horiguchi)
What about (it people think that it is good) a second () with reviewed
by <someone>....
