Greg Smith wrote:
> Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> > I don't think anyone is arguing against the need for visibility. I
> > agree with Bruce that the billboard format isn't a good thing to add
> > to our release notes.
> >
>
> The only person who suggested the release notes as a possible
> destination for this information was Jim when he started the thread. I
> argued against it too. I read Bruce's comments to say he didn't like
> the format I suggested no matter where the info went though.
Oh, I thought that was for the release notes and when the company name
came before the actual feature, it looked like Company XXX Park baseball
stadium naming. Sure, that format is fine in a sponsorship-themed
document.
I apologize for not reading far enough down to see that the proposed
format was _not_ for the release notes:
- Publication: once you see the format it really needs to go in, this is
- too heavy for the release notes. Don't distract the poor DBA who is
- trying to read through them to see what's been fixed with this release,
- they don't care about any of this. That's a technical document. Make a
- sponsored feature page on the web site somewhere, publish updates in
- something like the above format before the release goes out, and make
- sure it's highlighted in the PR around the release.
I obviously freaked out too quickly. :-(
And I have no problem linkking _to_ the sponsorship Wiki page from the
release notes.
I also liked the spreadsheet or SQL file idea where we could actually do
analysis of the companies and sponsored items. Yeah, why not use SQL
for this.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +