Horton

Re: Credit in the release notes WAS: Draft release notes complete

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

View thread
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, PeterEisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-05-13T01:27:21Z
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 05/12/2012 09:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 03:42:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> How many names on a single item is ideal?  The activity of reviewers and
>>> their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
>>> potential names per item.
>>>
>>> How much of a downside is having the names in the release notes?  For
>>> example, we decided that company names shouldn't be on release note
>>> items, so there is a case where we decided names were more of a negative
>>> than a positive.  Are there other negatives?  Do other project release
>>> notes have developer names?  How are these names perceived by our
>>> general readers?
>> The two paragraphs above show the main problem.
>>
>> Who gets listed on each item is a matter of some contention.  For
>> example, if Robert Haas reviews a patch, and makes substantial
>> suggesitons and fixes to the patch, should he be listed on it as well?
>> If so, how much work is required for someone to be listed if they're not
>> the original author?  What if we merge two patches, but take 90% of
>> Patch A and only 10% of Patch B?  etc.
> One idea I just had was to optionally put developer names on section
> headings.  That would remove my name from the nine pg_upgrade entries in
> the pg_upgrade section.  We could put Tom Lane's name at the top of the
> optimizer section, and some of the server-side languages could be
> trimmed down this way.


Say you do eight and someone else does one. I just don't see any benefit 
in this. The fact that a name is repeated a few times really doesn't matter.

>
> Should we go with a single developer per item, and then let people
> suggest corrections?  With reviewers involved, and often multiple commit
> messages per release note item, the just isn't enough detail in git logs
> to reproduce this accurately.  I also over-emphasized new
> developers/reviewers, but that seems to have distorted the other goals
> unacceptably.

Most cases should be pretty clear. Most features have a single major 
commit. The author(s) mentioned there are who should be listed, IMNSHO. 
That might leave a handful of cases where more judgement is required.

We seem to be in danger of overthinking this.

cheers

andrew