On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:07 -0400
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> > > How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
> > >
> > > a) not at all
> > > b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the
> > > bottom. c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
> >
> > A weak preference for (c), with (b) running a close second. As
> > others have suggested, a review that leads to significant
> > commitable changes to the patch should bump the credit to
> > co-authorship.
>
> As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes, and
> got lots of complaints, particularly because the line describing the
> feature now had many more names on it.
I am just someone that is thinking that maybe can review things...I am
not voting OK but I have a comment about your last email...
If people thinks (and with people I am not talking about myself but
regular committers and reviewers) think that option c is good, I think
that we should change the tool (or the way) that release notes are
done....I mean (and excuse my poor English) if people thing that it is
the way to go, we should make tools good enough for what people want
not change people thoughts cause tools are not good enough
>
> In my opinion, adding reviewer names to each feature item might result
> in the removal of all names from features.
Let's fix the way that release notes are done
>
> A poll is nice for gauging interest, but many people who vote don't
> understand the ramifications of what they are voting on.
>
I agree, but cost-benefit is what we should see here not just cost....