FAQ
Bruce,

As a fork of the earlier discussion, I think we should credit two groups of people in the release notes:

(1) bug reporters / testers
(2) patch reviewers

My suggestions to keep things simple is, rather than trying to credit people on a per-feature basis, we simply have a list of names at the end of the release notes. Also, that we limit it to people whose contribution to development was significant (i.e. reviewed more than one patch, or spent a lot of time testing and analyzing a bug).

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
San Francisco

Search Discussions

  • Jim Nasby at May 17, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    On May 14, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Joshua Berkus wrote:
    As a fork of the earlier discussion, I think we should credit two groups of people in the release notes:

    (1) bug reporters / testers
    (2) patch reviewers

    My suggestions to keep things simple is, rather than trying to credit people on a per-feature basis, we simply have a list of names at the end of the release notes. Also, that we limit it to people whose contribution to development was significant (i.e. reviewed more than one patch, or spent a lot of time testing and analyzing a bug).
    +1
    --
    Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim@nasby.net
    512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
  • Bruce Momjian at Jun 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Joshua Berkus wrote:
    Bruce,

    As a fork of the earlier discussion, I think we should credit two groups of people in the release notes:

    (1) bug reporters / testers
    (2) patch reviewers

    My suggestions to keep things simple is, rather than trying to credit people on a per-feature basis, we simply have a list of names at the end of the release notes. Also, that we limit it to people whose contribution to development was significant (i.e. reviewed more than one patch, or spent a lot of time testing and analyzing a bug).
    [ Sorry for the long delay in replying.]

    Putting those names in the release notes sends us down the slippery
    slope of putting names in there that have no practical purpose. Names on
    the features tell us the people to contact for problems with the feature
    Reviewer names, without being assigned a specific features, don't really
    have any practical value to people reading the release notes, and make
    the names pure advertising for those people (which is OK in itself but
    hard to justify in the release notes).

    Can we do something on the web site or press release on this? One
    compromise would be to put the reviewers name on the features they
    reviewed most. That would have some practical value in using their name
    in the release notes.

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

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • David Fetter at Jun 13, 2011 at 1:07 am

    On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:08:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
    Joshua Berkus wrote:
    Bruce,

    As a fork of the earlier discussion, I think we should credit two groups of people in the release notes:

    (1) bug reporters / testers
    (2) patch reviewers

    My suggestions to keep things simple is, rather than trying to credit people on a per-feature basis, we simply have a list of names at the end of the release notes. Also, that we limit it to people whose contribution to development was significant (i.e. reviewed more than one patch, or spent a lot of time testing and analyzing a bug).
    [ Sorry for the long delay in replying.]

    Putting those names in the release notes sends us down the slippery
    slope of putting names in there that have no practical purpose.
    With utmost respect, I disagree.

    Reviewers perform a function essential to our release process, and
    should get the credit they deserve alongside the coders whose efforts
    they complement. If it turns out we have an extra screen-full or two
    of names, that's a small thing. If we slight someone who put in a
    bunch of effort, that's a much larger problem, as it sends a message
    about that kind of contribution that we wouldn't actually mean.

    Cheers,
    David.
    --
    David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
    Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
    Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
    iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

    Remember to vote!
    Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
  • Bruce Momjian at Jun 16, 2011 at 10:24 pm

    David Fetter wrote:
    On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:08:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
    Joshua Berkus wrote:
    Bruce,

    As a fork of the earlier discussion, I think we should credit two groups of people in the release notes:

    (1) bug reporters / testers
    (2) patch reviewers

    My suggestions to keep things simple is, rather than trying to credit people on a per-feature basis, we simply have a list of names at the end of the release notes. Also, that we limit it to people whose contribution to development was significant (i.e. reviewed more than one patch, or spent a lot of time testing and analyzing a bug).
    [ Sorry for the long delay in replying.]

    Putting those names in the release notes sends us down the slippery
    slope of putting names in there that have no practical purpose.
    With utmost respect, I disagree.

    Reviewers perform a function essential to our release process, and
    should get the credit they deserve alongside the coders whose efforts
    they complement. If it turns out we have an extra screen-full or two
    of names, that's a small thing. If we slight someone who put in a
    bunch of effort, that's a much larger problem, as it sends a message
    about that kind of contribution that we wouldn't actually mean.
    I should back up and explain that the reason for having usernames on
    release feature items is not to give credit, but rather to assign blame
    later, in case the features cause problems. The submitter becomes the
    default go-to person for problems with that item. Having a list of
    reviewers does not serve that purpose, hence the slippery slope comment.

    If you put reviewers, then there is no logic that says company names
    should not be next to contributed features. I am not saying that is
    wrong, but it is the logical extension. I wonder if the submitter names
    should not be in the release notes at all. Do other projects put names
    in there?

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

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Joshua Berkus at Jun 17, 2011 at 1:15 am
    Bruce,
    I should back up and explain that the reason for having usernames on
    release feature items is not to give credit, but rather to assign
    blame
    later, in case the features cause problems. The submitter becomes the
    default go-to person for problems with that item. Having a list of
    reviewers does not serve that purpose, hence the slippery slope
    comment.
    Well, unfortunately, while you and I might understand that, most of our community does not. And to the completely uninitiated, it sure looks like credit.

    All of this is becoming less of a problem as we update the contributor list regularly. If I can clean up the sponsors list as well, I think we'll hear less complaints.

    --
    Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://pgexperts.com
    San Francisco
  • Bruce Momjian at Jun 17, 2011 at 3:48 am

    Joshua Berkus wrote:
    Bruce,
    I should back up and explain that the reason for having usernames on
    release feature items is not to give credit, but rather to assign
    blame
    later, in case the features cause problems. The submitter becomes the
    default go-to person for problems with that item. Having a list of
    reviewers does not serve that purpose, hence the slippery slope
    comment.
    Well, unfortunately, while you and I might understand that, most of
    our community does not. And to the completely uninitiated, it sure
    looks like credit. Agreed.
    All of this is becoming less of a problem as we update the contributor
    list regularly. If I can clean up the sponsors list as well, I think
    we'll hear less complaints.
    Yep.

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

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Peter Eisentraut at Jun 17, 2011 at 4:58 am

    On tor, 2011-06-16 at 18:24 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
    I wonder if the submitter names should not be in the release notes at
    all. Do other projects put names in there?
    In the release notes, I'd say usually not. The names are usually
    recorded in a changelog, but nowadays that is often generated from the
    source control system.

    If I were to look for "blame" in the PostgreSQL source, I'd go to Git.
    I wouldn't object to removing the names in the release notes.
  • Josh Berkus at Jun 17, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    If I were to look for "blame" in the PostgreSQL source, I'd go to Git.
    I wouldn't object to removing the names in the release notes.
    So, new policy: no names in the release notes, and we update the
    contributor list with each release?

    One thing we'd talked about offlist was having a "this release" list at
    the bottom of the contributor list, for people who had contributed
    *only* to the current release. I think it might be time to revisit that.

    --
    Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://pgexperts.com
  • Greg Smith at Jun 17, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    On 06/17/2011 02:15 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
    So, new policy: no names in the release notes, and we update the
    contributor list with each release?
    I still have a TODO here to prototype something on the wiki to help
    track sponsored features better. We'd have to do that better in a big
    way if the release notes are moving in this direction. It's already way
    too difficult to get people to sponsor features, both for the sponsor
    and for the people developing it, and this will push some distance
    toward making it harder.

    Right now developers can point to the release notes and say "there's a
    feature like that I helped develop" when trying to convince someone to
    fund a similar new feature. If the new state of things is that they are
    just one name on a long contributor list, and you have to hit the
    individual git commits to confirm what people actually did, it will be a
    significant step backwards in that situation. The companies who fund
    features don't have time for that sort of thing.

    --
    Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
    PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
  • Alvaro Herrera at Jun 18, 2011 at 1:06 am

    Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue jun 16 18:24:16 -0400 2011:

    I should back up and explain that the reason for having usernames on
    release feature items is not to give credit, but rather to assign blame
    later, in case the features cause problems.
    I call BS on this. This PoV is perfect for justifying that sponsoring
    companies do not need to get credited, but it's not really the truth.
    Credit *is* given by having people listed in the release notes, whether
    you explicitely admit it or not. And pissing off contributors by taking
    it away is not something to be done lightly.

    (If assigning blame and being point of contact is really the truth, why
    is there no email address?)

    I understand that you don't want to credit sponsoring companies, but I
    feel that you can decree that as new policy without pissing off
    individual contributors. If we go the route of Greg Smith's suggestion
    whereby we assign credit to sponsoring companies in a separate page,
    that seems to please everyone without collateral damage.

    I am not saying we should credit reviewers next to each item; but
    perhaps we can come to some agreement that they are credited elsewhere
    (for example, maybe in the same page that credits sponsoring companies,
    or a neighbor page).

    OTOH I think bug reporters fall in a completely different group than
    patch reviewers. I mean, they are generally reporting bugs in existing
    releases; they are not participating in the development process.

    --
    Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
  • Bruce Momjian at Jun 23, 2011 at 4:13 am

    \Alvaro Herrera wrote:
    Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue jun 16 18:24:16 -0400 2011:
    I should back up and explain that the reason for having usernames on
    release feature items is not to give credit, but rather to assign blame
    later, in case the features cause problems.
    I call BS on this. This PoV is perfect for justifying that sponsoring
    companies do not need to get credited, but it's not really the truth.
    Credit *is* given by having people listed in the release notes, whether
    you explicitly admit it or not. And pissing off contributors by taking
    it away is not something to be done lightly.
    I can tell you why _I_ added names to release note items starting 15
    years ago. By putting names on the release note items, if a bug was
    found in a release, I could easily know which developer to contact to
    get it fixed. I could have trolled the CVS logs, but it is often
    complex to find the right item. And why not put the developer names in
    the release notes? Who was going to read it except other developers?

    Well, a lot has changed in 15 years, and this name thing is only now
    being revisited, which is fine. I find it a happy coincidence that the
    names I used to help me are now seen as motivating Postgres
    contributions.

    Just a reality check, but I don't think the names in the release notes
    were originally seen as motivating developers because the assumption was
    that only a handful of people even cared about our release notes.
    (If assigning blame and being point of contact is really the truth, why
    is there no email address?)
    I already had everyone's email address and it was inefficient to type it
    on every item. I could easily look up their email addresses in my mail
    program.

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

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Bruce Momjian at Jun 23, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Bruce Momjian wrote:
    \Alvaro Herrera wrote:
    Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue jun 16 18:24:16 -0400 2011:
    I should back up and explain that the reason for having usernames on
    release feature items is not to give credit, but rather to assign blame
    later, in case the features cause problems.
    I call BS on this. This PoV is perfect for justifying that sponsoring
    companies do not need to get credited, but it's not really the truth.
    Credit *is* given by having people listed in the release notes, whether
    you explicitly admit it or not. And pissing off contributors by taking
    it away is not something to be done lightly.
    I can tell you why _I_ added names to release note items starting 15
    years ago. By putting names on the release note items, if a bug was
    found in a release, I could easily know which developer to contact to
    get it fixed. I could have trolled the CVS logs, but it is often
    complex to find the right item. And why not put the developer names in
    the release notes? Who was going to read it except other developers?

    Well, a lot has changed in 15 years, and this name thing is only now
    being revisited, which is fine. I find it a happy coincidence that the
    names I used to help me are now seen as motivating Postgres
    contributions.

    Just a reality check, but I don't think the names in the release notes
    were originally seen as motivating developers because the assumption was
    that only a handful of people even cared about our release notes.
    (If assigning blame and being point of contact is really the truth, why
    is there no email address?)
    I already had everyone's email address and it was inefficient to type it
    on every item. I could easily look up their email addresses in my mail
    program.
    If you want proof, we only started using full names, e.g. not "(Tom)",
    in 9.0. It didn't matter if users knew who Tom was --- we did. Look at
    the 6.1 release notes --- they are mostly only first names.

    Second, if you want to get rid of the names, we can still place them in
    SGML comments so developers can see who did a feature.

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

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Bruce Momjian at Jun 23, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Bruce Momjian wrote:
    (If assigning blame and being point of contact is really the truth, why
    is there no email address?)
    I already had everyone's email address and it was inefficient to type it
    on every item. I could easily look up their email addresses in my mail
    program.
    If you want proof, we only started using full names, e.g. not "(Tom)",
    in 9.0. It didn't matter if users knew who Tom was --- we did. Look at
    the 6.1 release notes --- they are mostly only first names.

    Second, if you want to get rid of the names, we can still place them in
    SGML comments so developers can see who did a feature.
    FYI, the general logic was that I used first and last names only if two
    people had the same first name.

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

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Alvaro Herrera at Jun 23, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue jun 23 00:13:34 -0400 2011:
    \Alvaro Herrera wrote:
    Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue jun 16 18:24:16 -0400 2011:
    I should back up and explain that the reason for having usernames on
    release feature items is not to give credit, but rather to assign blame
    later, in case the features cause problems.
    I call BS on this. This PoV is perfect for justifying that sponsoring
    companies do not need to get credited, but it's not really the truth.
    Credit *is* given by having people listed in the release notes, whether
    you explicitly admit it or not. And pissing off contributors by taking
    it away is not something to be done lightly.
    I can tell you why _I_ added names to release note items starting 15
    years ago. By putting names on the release note items, if a bug was
    found in a release, I could easily know which developer to contact to
    get it fixed.
    Well, I am not saying that that wasn't the reason you did it. I am only
    saying that it's not the only purpose that it ended up serving.

    --
    Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
  • Bruce Momjian at Jun 23, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    Alvaro Herrera wrote:
    Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue jun 23 00:13:34 -0400 2011:
    \Alvaro Herrera wrote:
    Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue jun 16 18:24:16 -0400 2011:
    I should back up and explain that the reason for having usernames on
    release feature items is not to give credit, but rather to assign blame
    later, in case the features cause problems.
    I call BS on this. This PoV is perfect for justifying that sponsoring
    companies do not need to get credited, but it's not really the truth.
    Credit *is* given by having people listed in the release notes, whether
    you explicitly admit it or not. And pissing off contributors by taking
    it away is not something to be done lightly.
    I can tell you why _I_ added names to release note items starting 15
    years ago. By putting names on the release note items, if a bug was
    found in a release, I could easily know which developer to contact to
    get it fixed.
    Well, I am not saying that that wasn't the reason you did it. I am only
    saying that it's not the only purpose that it ended up serving.
    Agreed.

    If we agree to make that credit goal overt, there is then little logic
    to avoid company names in the release notes, except it is more overt
    than it is now. It is then a question of the level of credit given ---
    there is no logical prohibition.

    My big point is that credit has grown out of a practical need to blame
    developers, and we have never really made the "give credit" decision ---
    it just happened. Rather than accept what we have now, I think we need
    to decide on the credit goal and then its use in the release notes.

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

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Peter Eisentraut at Jun 24, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    On tor, 2011-06-23 at 10:59 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
    If we agree to make that credit goal overt, there is then little logic
    to avoid company names in the release notes, except it is more overt
    than it is now. It is then a question of the level of credit given
    --- there is no logical prohibition.
    I think we'd do both the readers of the actual release notes and those
    who want to be credited a service if we separated those lists anyway.
    We could just have a list of names after the change list, "The following
    contributed to this release" or something like that.
  • Josh Berkus at Jun 27, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    On 6/24/11 5:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    I think we'd do both the readers of the actual release notes and those
    who want to be credited a service if we separated those lists anyway.
    We could just have a list of names after the change list, "The following
    contributed to this release" or something like that.
    I'd be fine with that. Or, for that matter, putting it on the web site.

    Note that we do have a whole list of *code contributors* who aren't
    getting credited except in the release notes: people who contributed one
    small patch to one release, and then not again. These folks don't make
    it onto the Contributors page, so we need to credit them *somewhere*.

    --
    Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://pgexperts.com

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-advocacy @
categoriespostgresql
postedMay 14, '11 at 7:14p
activeJun 27, '11 at 5:23p
posts18
users7
websitepostgresql.org
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase