Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15991.1039461292@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group (Jason Earl <jason.earl@simplot.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jason Earl <jason.earl@simplot.com> writes: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> Compare the 7.3 release notes, written for the most part by Bruce >> Momjian and revised by a couple of other developers, to the "press >> release", written by people who were obviously ill-informed. > So does this mean that you are volunteering to proofread the next > marketing announcement? I would wager that only a PostgreSQL > developer (such as yourself) could have picked out the inconsistencies > that you were able to find. FWIW, the press release looked fine to me too (and yes, I saw it in advance). > The difference between the press release and the Release Notes is the > intended audience. Exactly. The level of detail in the release notes is aimed at hackers (and usually gets criticized as "insufficient" by them ;-)), but a press release has entirely different purposes. > In short, if you want to help the folks writing the press releases, > then that's fine and dandy. One error that I think the advocacy team made is that they didn't invite review of the press release from a wider part of the community. Although I generally agree with the viewpoint that marketing issues should be on a separate list and not on -hackers or -general, I think it wouldn't be out of place to send one message to those lists saying "a draft of the press release for <event FOO> is up at <this URL>, please send comments to <advocacy mail list>." That seems like a reasonable compromise between filling the lists with unwanted material and having people feel that they were excluded from the process. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: