Re: Draft release notes complete

On 05/11/2012 10:15 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:01:32AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:51:49AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/11/2012 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:56PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>> On May 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>>>> How about a hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is with names attached to the feature/bugfix descriptions, and then have a separate section "Other Contributors" to recognize patch reviewers and other helpers?
>>>>>> works for me.
>>>>> Me, too.
>>>> That does not work for me. There is no practical reason for a list of
>>>> names to appear in the release notes. I suggest if we want to do that
>>>> that we remove all names from the release notes (as Tom suggested), and
>>>> create a wiki for credit, and link to that from the release
>>>> announcement. That would allow us to put company names in there too.
>>>>
>>> I gave you a reason. You might not agree with it but saying that
>>> it's no reason doesn't make it so. A wiki page will just be
>>> duplication, IMNSHO.
>> I mean a reason from the reader/development-process perspective, not
>> from the perspective of giving a some benefit to contributors.
> Let me add that I am concerned about the lack of objectivity in many of
> the suggestions in this thread. This has prompted me to think that the
> temptation of having names on these release note items is just too
> great, and that the names should be removed.
>
> Let me put it this way --- the release notes are read by thousands of
> people. The benefit individuals gather from their names in the release
> notes is a small part of the overall value provided by the release notes
> to users. There was a practical need to have names on items in the past
> --- that need is no longer present.
>
> I predict that if we twist the release notes to have PR value for
> contributors, it will become a prepetual problem and will diminish the
> cohesiveness of our group. I am already personally upset by a few of
> the things I have seen on this thread.

Well, I don't know what has changed that made it imperative in the past
to have the names and makes it now redundant, nor what could possibly
have upset you so much. Maybe I'm dense, but that's the truth of it.

Now if someone is going to volunteer to build *AND* *MAINTAIN* a Credits
page, that will be good. It would be even better if they would go back
and do it historically. But just hoping that will happen and meantime
removing the names from the notes seems to me a retrograde step.

cheers

andrew