From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Release Note Changes |
Date: | 2007-12-10 22:26:11 |
Message-ID: | 200712102226.lBAMQBR08337@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>>> I assumed the white paper would have proper attribution.
> >>> Right, but is the white paper going to be thorough to mention _all_
> >>> changes?
> >>>
> >> Hmmm good question which gets back to where we started :). My very first
> >> thought on all of this was that we would list all notable changes but
> >> that we wouldn't mention anyone's name.
> >
> > Isn't that listing what is already in the release notes?
> >
>
> No :). What is listed already in the release notes is what "you" think
> is notable, which is why I mention the subjective below. What is cool to
> you may not be cool to others etc... I am not saying you are doing a bad
> job just that it is subjective.
>
> Case in point I think the work that Stefan did for this release is
> notable. I believe it is notable for several reasons.
>
> 1. Usability
>
> 2. Recognition (yes I am aware of the thoughts on that)
>
> 3. It was grunt work that should have been done with the original patch
> that didn't get done. Stefan picked up the ball and ran with it and
> produced something that will make our product more usable for the end user.
>
> Tom and you disagreed. I understand the reasoning and I don't actually
> disagree with the thought process but I think the thought process is
> flawed. I do not believe people only look at the release notes for "wow
> cool". I believe they look at them to see who deserves kudos in this
> release.
OK, that was clear to me. You are saying based on the criteria we have
used in the past our system of feedback works (good), but the criteria
used isn't 100% agreed.
My point is that it isn't that I am too subjective and closed to
feedback on adding/removing items, but rather the policy used isn't open
for feedback; but it really is. Should we open discussion of changing
the policy?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-10 22:29:44 | Re: partitioned table query question |
Previous Message | Vivek Khera | 2007-12-10 22:25:36 | Re: Script to reset all sequence values in the a given DB? |