Horton

Re: Draft release notes complete

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-05-10T17:03:36Z
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

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:56:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> As a general comment, I think that your new policy of crediting the
> reviewer on every feature except when that reviewer is also a
> committer has produced a horrific mess.  Just to pick one of many
> examples, consider this item:
> 
> Add a security_barrier option for views (KaiGai Kohei, Noah Misch)
> 
> Here is what the commit message says:
> 
>     Patch by KaiGai Kohei; original problem report by Heikki Linnakangas
>     (in October 2009!).  Review (in earlier versions) by Noah Misch and
>     others.  Design advice by Tom Lane and myself.  Further review and
>     cleanup by me.
> 
> So there are four people mentioned in this commit message, and you've
> picked out two of them to credit, not on the basis of who did the most
> work, but rather on the basis of which ones happen to not be
> committers.  The result is that, as I read through these release
> notes, one gets what I believe to be a very misleading notion of who
> developed which features.  I don't object to not being credited on
> this one, but I don't think it makes sense to credit Noah and NOT
> credit me.  As you have it, people who did little more than say "yep,
> looks fine to me" are credited almost equally with the people who
> wrote the code, while a committer who heavily revised the patch may
> not be mentioned at all, or sometimes (seemingly at random) they are.

I assumed reviewers mentioned in the commit messages made substantive
suggestions on improving the patch, rather than just +1.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +