On 06/27/2013 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:> Adding the names to each
release note item is not a problem; the
> problem is the volume of names that overwhelms the release note text. If
> we went that direction, I predict we would just remove _all_ names from
> the release notes.
That's not a realistic objection. We'd be talking about one or two more
names per patch, with a handful of exceptions.
If you're going to make an objection, object to the amount of extra work
it would be, which is signigficant with the current state of our
technology. Realistically, it'll take the help of additional people.
On 06/27/2013 09:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the audience for
> the release notes doesn't actually give a darn who implemented what.
There is some argument to be made about moving the whole "list of names"
to some other resource, like a web page. In fact, if the mythical land
where we have a new CF application, that other resource could even be
generated by the CF app with some hand-tweaking (this would also require
some tweaks to community profiles etc.).
What I would be opposed to is continuing to list the original authors in
the release notes and putting reviewers, testers, co-authors, etc. on a
separate web page. If we're gonna move people, let's move *all* of
them. Also, it needs to be on something more trustworthy than the wiki,
like maybe putting it at postgresql.org/developers/9.3/
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
wrote:
> Encouraging new people is good, but recognizing sustained, long-term
> contributions is good, too. I think we should do more of that, too.
I wasn't thinking about doing it every year -- just for 9.3, in order to
encourage more reviewers, and encourage reviewers to do more reviews.
But that would only work if we're also giving reviewers credit; as
several people have said, they care more about credit than they do about
prizes.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
