| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PeterEisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Credit in the release notes WAS: Draft release notes complete |
| Date: | 2012-05-13 01:35:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20120513013548.GF21473@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:27:21PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >Should we go with a single developer per item, and then let people
> >suggest corrections? With reviewers involved, and often multiple commit
> >messages per release note item, the just isn't enough detail in git logs
> >to reproduce this accurately. I also over-emphasized new
> >developers/reviewers, but that seems to have distorted the other goals
> >unacceptably.
>
> Most cases should be pretty clear. Most features have a single major
> commit. The author(s) mentioned there are who should be listed,
> IMNSHO. That might leave a handful of cases where more judgement is
> required.
>
> We seem to be in danger of overthinking this.
Results have just shown it isn't a simple case. It is unclear how
important the reviewers were, and how much a committer rewrote the
patch, and the significance of follow-on commits.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-13 01:48:01 | WaitLatchOrSocket API needs more thought for socket error conditions |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-05-13 01:27:21 | Re: Credit in the release notes WAS: Draft release notes complete |