On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
> 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 :-)
Yeah, with that in mind, I'd also switch to b.
I wouldn't complain, but if it's been tried and failed... what can I say?