Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 51CAEBC7.8050601@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/26/2013 09:14 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote: >> On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes? >>> >>> a) not at all >>> b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom. >>> c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch >> A weak preference for (c), with (b) running a close second. As others >> have suggested, a review that leads to significant commitable changes >> to the patch should bump the credit to co-authorship. > As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes, and > got lots of complaints, particularly because the line describing the > feature now had many more names on it. > > In my opinion, adding reviewer names to each feature item might result > in the removal of all names from features. > > A poll is nice for gauging interest, but many people who vote don't > understand the ramifications of what they are voting on. > That's why I voted for b :-) cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: