On 12/16/2014 01:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Including all of the other names of people who made important
>> contributions, many of which consisted of reviewing, would make that
>> release note item - and many others - really, really long, so I'm not
>> in favor of that. Crediting reviewers is important, but so is having
>> the release notes be readable.
> Agreed.
>
>> It has been proposed that we do a general list of people at the bottom
>> of the release notes who helped review during that cycle. That would
>> be less intrusive and possibly a good idea, but would we credit the
>> people who did a TON of reviewing? Everyone who reviewed even one
>> patch? Somewhere in between? Would committers be excluded because "we
>> just expect them to help" or included because credit is important to
>> established community members too? To what extent would this be
>> duplicative of http://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/ ?
> I don't particularly like this idea.
I do. I think it's an emminently sensible idea that gives credit without
disturbing the readability of the release notes.
As for where we draw the line, I would rather me more than less
inclusive. Anyone who gets a review credit in the git log should be
mentioned. I don't care that much whether or not committers are mentioned.
>
>> I'm not necessarily averse to doing something here, but the reason why
>> nothing has happened has much more to do with the fact that it's hard
>> to figure out exactly what the best thing would be than any idea that
>> "we don't want to credit reviewers". We do want to credit reviewers,
>> AND WE DO, as a quick look at 'git log' will speedily reveal.
> Agreed.
>
>
I can't believe how much we are tying ourselves up in knots over this.
It's not a good sign. Surely we trust the committers and the preparers
of the release notes to use some judgement, once we agree on general
guidelines.
cheers
andrew
