Horton

Re: Draft release notes complete

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-05-10T18:29:47Z
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 2:15 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>>> Then reviewers should be removed.
>>>
>>> I disagree.  We're trying to get more reviewers, and encourage them to
>>> do more reviewing.  Giving credit is a big part of that.
>>
>> Are you disagreeing with Bruce's premise, my logic, or the conclusion?
>
> Hah, good point.  I'm disagreeing with the conclusion that reviewers
> should be removed, unless we're going to remove everyone *and* give them
> credit elsewhere.  Which I would also be in favor of, I'm just not able
> to do the work right now.

Well, the problem with the way it is right now is that we're giving
similar amounts of credit for very different amounts of contribution,
which IMHO is no good.  I think that putting a "Credits" section at
the bottom and listing contributors there would be a reasonable
solution; I also think that crediting people on a web page or in some
other place would be a fine solution.  What we have right now manages
to be both unfair and unreadable.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company