| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| 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 00:36:17 |
| Message-ID: | 475C8A01.2040005@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Then, we would have a "Who contributed to this release" section that
just listed names without attribution to the specific feature. IMO, that
is the only "fair" way.
I realize that notable is subjective.
Here is the deal :). I think as long as a single person is making the
decision as to what goes and stays, there will always be friction.
Perhaps it is time for a "release team"? Odd numbers only, +1/-1 voting
etc... I don't know maybe that is too much.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-12-10 00:37:50 | Re: whats the deal with -u ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-10 00:19:35 | Re: whats the deal with -u ? |