On Thursday 21 August 2008 18:03:30 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > > > 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?
>
> In my opinion, for individuals, it is recognition; for companies it is
> advertizing.
we're recognizing those companies who help make postgresql what it is
today :-)
> I think company names would be ugly after a while. And
> what do you do for people who work and are sponsored by companies? Put
> both the company name and author? Frankly I would rather remove all the
> names from the release notes before making them longer with both.
>
yeah, I would listed the person next to the feature (as we do now), and then
add a section to the bottom noting "companies who contributed to this release
include:" and then have a list of companies. Personally I don't think it
would be that bad, and might encourage companies to sponsor more work. But if
no one else thinks so, no worries, was just an idea.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL