On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:16:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > Well, that would be fine, too. What I think is bizarre is that I got > > credit for some things I was barely involved in (like SP-gist) and no > > credit for other things I spent a LOT of time on (like security views > > and some of KaiGai's other stuff), and similarly for other people. > > Similarly, some things I am credited on involve very significant > > contributions from other people and others are cases where I did > > nearly all the work. I think it's weird to lump all those cases > > together without any distinction. > > Well, you know, these are *draft* release notes. Feel free to correct > them anywhere you believe they are inaccurate.
Yep. > I think the bigger issue here is that we don't seem to have consensus > about whether to include reviewers' names. Bruce evidently thinks > that's a good idea, else he wouldn't have done it, but I only recall one > other person speaking in favor of it. Everybody else seems to think > that it'll be too verbose. There were 2-3 who liked the reviewer names. The bottom line is it is easy to _remove_ names; it requires a lot of research to add them. One creative idea would be to keep the reviewer names as-is, but trim the release notes down to a single name just before final release. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
