Horton

Re: Draft release notes complete

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

View thread
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Vik Reykja <vikreykja@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-05-10T13:20:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Expose track_iotiming information via pg_stat_statements.

  2. Rewrite GiST support code for rangetypes.

  3. Clean up a couple of box gist helper functions.

  4. Replace the "New Linear" GiST split algorithm for boxes and points with a

Excerpts from Peter Geoghegan's message of jue may 10 09:12:57 -0400 2012:
> On 10 May 2012 13:45, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> > Right, but I think it would be good to identify them explicitly as reviewers
> > if we're going to include the names.
> 
> +1. I think we should probably do more to credit reviewers. It's not
> uncommon for a reviewer to end up becoming a co-author, particularly
> if they're a committer, but it's a little misleading to add a reviewer
> after the feature description without qualifying that they are the
> reviewer.

Agreed.

What about crediting patch sponsors (other than the author's employer, I
mean)?  I remember crediting one in a commit message and being told it
wasn't okay.  Is it okay to credit them in the release notes?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support