Robert Treat wrote:
> > 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 :-)
Agreed, but does it make sense to mix that into a technical list of
features? I like it in the press release and release announcement, but
not in the technical list; it seems inappropriate there.
> > 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.
Well, a list at the bottom does sound pretty clean, though I can see the
list being quite long. How do we even collect these names, particularly
for employers that give work time to employees for open source
development?
Personally I think companies read announcements, not release notes,
which is why I would like our efforts concentrated there.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +