From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll |
Date: | 2013-06-27 16:19:33 |
Message-ID: | 51CC6615.8080909@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/27/2013 12:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
>>> It could be pretty satisfactory to have a simple listing, in the
>>> release notes, of the set of reviewers. That's a lot less
>>> bookkeeping than tracking this for each and every change.
>> Adding the names to each release note item is not a problem; the
>> problem is the volume of names that overwhelms the release note text. If
>> we went that direction, I predict we would just remove _all_ names from
>> the release notes.
> Yeah. Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the audience for
> the release notes doesn't actually give a darn who implemented what.
Maybe we should have a Kudos / Bragging rights wiki page, with a table
something like this:
Release
Feature Name
Principal Author(s)
Contributing Author(s)
Code Reviewer(s)
Tester(s)
Constructing it going backwards would be an interesting task :-)
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nicolas Barbier | 2013-06-27 16:35:24 | Re: Hash partitioning. |
Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2013-06-27 16:17:10 | Re: extensible external toast tuple support & snappy prototype |