On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:04:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > When we did the 9.1 release notes, reviewers weren't credited, and I
> > sort of assumed that policy would be the same this time around.
>
> Yes. This seems to be a policy change that was made without notice or
> discussion, and I personally don't find it to be a good idea. I think
> the release notes should only credit the primary author(s) of a feature.
> Face it, most people don't care about that, so we should not be
> expending much space on it.
Agreed on just using the primary author. The first name is _always_ the
primary author, so we can just go with that. I didn't want to do:
(Tom Lane, Robert Haas; reviewers Bruce Momjian, Jeff Davis)
That was too complicated.
Should I make the change now? It is easy. Should we remove the names
completely? We can consider going to a single name as a move toward
removing names evantually.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +