On Thursday 21 August 2008 17:00:29 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > > >>> Right now, we only put up year-round sponsors of full-time
> > > >>> developers. Someday we'll be able to list other sponsors, but not
> > > >>> at the moment.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hmm, I think the more important factor here is the net result of
> > > >> support and it'd be fair to list a list of features supported. There
> > > >> are many important contributions developed by non full-time
> > > >> developers.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I agree completely. I'm just telling you that the effort to
> > > > revamp the sponsors page has been permanently stuck in political
> > > > deadlock and lack of volunteer time for some years now.
> > >
> > > I'm not about global political changes, I'm about adding my sponsor,
> > > which is a the biggest postgres user in France.
> >
> > Dare I mention it, but we have a history of listing people who contribute
> > code for each release, perhaps we should add a "sponsors" section in the
> > release notes, and include a list of every company who sponsors a feature
> > for that release (based on designation of the developer who did the
> > work).
>
> We mention companies in the press release; having them in the release
> notes seems like advertizing, and advertizing that will remain in the
> release notes for years and years (which is probably bad).
>
Well, technically it is advertising, but I don't see why it is necessarily
bad. Developer contributions live on in old release notes for many years even
once the developer stops contributing, why not with companies? Or to put it
another way, would it be so bad if people looking in the 7.3 release notes
saw Great Bridge listed as a corporate sponsor for that release?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL