On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:20:32AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Peter Geoghegan's message of jue may 10 09:12:57 -0400 2012:
> > On 10 May 2012 13:45, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> > > Right, but I think it would be good to identify them explicitly as reviewers
> > > if we're going to include the names.
> >
> > +1. I think we should probably do more to credit reviewers. It's not
> > uncommon for a reviewer to end up becoming a co-author, particularly
> > if they're a committer, but it's a little misleading to add a reviewer
> > after the feature description without qualifying that they are the
> > reviewer.
>
> Agreed.
>
> What about crediting patch sponsors (other than the author's employer, I
> mean)? I remember crediting one in a commit message and being told it
> wasn't okay. Is it okay to credit them in the release notes?
No. We discussed crediting companies in the release notes, and that was
agreed to be a bad idea, I think because the release notes live for so
long, and because the release notes would end up being an advertisement.
Can you imagine all our employers saying we should get their name into
the release notes more?
The big take-away is that the release notes are mostly for blame and to
designate a go-to person for feature problems, not for giving credit,
and especially not for company credit. There are just too many people
reading those release notes for that to happen, and if we are going to
go any direction, it would be to remove user names completely from the
release notes.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +