On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:12:00PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote:
> 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
Production of the release notes was not the problem; it was the text in
the release notes. I don't see how we could modify the release note
format.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +