On 06/26/2013 09:14 AM, Bruce Momjian 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.
>
> In my opinion, adding reviewer names to each feature item might result
> in the removal of all names from features.
>
> A poll is nice for gauging interest, but many people who vote don't
> understand the ramifications of what they are voting on.
>
That's why I voted for b :-)
cheers
andrew