Re: Draft release notes complete

Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue may 10 16:07:33 -0400 2012:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> > The important thing about the current mechanism is that it ties the
> > contributor's name to a feature in the only place where we currently list
> > features on a time basis. So if I (for example) want to put on my resume
> > that I contributed adding new values to an enum in the 9.1 release, there is
> > a really easy way for someone to check that that's true, without having to
> > search commit logs, which aren't always wonderfully reliable either. If you
> > want a little finer granularity, let me offer the following categories as a
> > way of opening up discussion:
> >
> >   Author: contributed a significant portion of the code of a feature
> >   (say, over 25%)
> >   Contributor: made a significant contribution to the code (say 10% or
> >   more?), but less than that of an author.
> >   Reviewer: did a significant review of the code but not a significant
> >   code contribution.
> >
> > These are intended as broad guidelines, rather than something to be
> > nitpicked and litigated, but you should get the idea.
>
> 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.

It's been said elsewhere that adding all this to the release notes as
found on the official docs would be too bulky. How about having a
second copy of the release notes that contains authorship info as
proposed by Andrew? Then the docs could have no names at all, and
credit would be given by some other page in the website (to which the
release notes would link).

We could even have both be built from a single source, if we made
inclusion depend on some DSSSL flag or something.

(Obviously I'm not proposing doing this for beta1).

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support