On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:54:36AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >We could try cutting it down to one name and see if we have any problems
> >with it. Robert is right that if you are thinking of this as "credit"
> >it is never going to work.
> >
>
>
> I don't really buy this at all. The fact that it's not perfect
> doesn't mean that it's wrong. Just about the only reward we give
> contributors is some kudos, and the more the better as far as I'm
> concerned. I'd almost like to see a "Credits" section of the release
> notes, but if we're not going to have that let's keep doing what we
> have been doing.
Well, the new change is that we now are listing reviewers, but frankly,
we are doing a lot more collaborative work than we have in the past,
meaning there is an increase in the number of names in this release, and
it has been steadily growing even if we don't include the reviewers.
I think the names are a balance between the release notes looking trim
and professional, and giving credit to individuals, however imperfect.
I think giving credit to companies is going too far away from
trim/professional, and I think most agree on that. (I have suggested the
company names belong mostly in the release announcement.)
The question is how do we handle the explosion of names, and does it
still look trim/professional? I think we are probably on the far edge
of that with the 9.2 release notes. Putting names at the bottom or a
"Credit" section just seems also too far away from trim/professional
because there is no procedural reason for the names, and they are
literally listed as "Credit".
Let me also add I am embarassed at the number of pg_upgrade release note
items with my name on them. They are all user-visible changes, so
should be listed, but does having 9 pg_upgrade items out of 245 (4%)
seem fair credit-wise? No. There's another unfair example.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +