From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Draft release notes complete |
Date: | 2012-05-10 18:43:48 |
Message-ID: | CAFNqd5XhniWk0fbo00rfyXWUbMpwm3n1Zxe-vvjw1tsduCwqmg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 5/10/12 9:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On tor, 2012-05-10 at 10:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> The big take-away is that the release notes are mostly for blame and
>>> to designate a go-to person for feature problems, not for giving
>>> credit,
>>
>> Then reviewers should be removed.
>
> I disagree. We're trying to get more reviewers, and encourage them to
> do more reviewing. Giving credit is a big part of that.
As much as that's nice, I don't think that's quite enough reason to do
so, at least not as a last minute afterthought in trying to finalize
the release notes.
On the other hand, if reviewers are considered extra "go-to" people
for the purposes of 'blamecasting' if something goes wrong with a new
feature, that's actually a fine reason to include them. If both the
developer *and* the reviewer missed an issue, then *both* are
"blameworthy," and if we have any features gone desperately wrong,
both deserve to have appropriate things thrown at them.
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-05-10 19:01:33 | Re: Corner cases with GiST n-way splits |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-10 18:30:35 | Re: Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample |