Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88342E00A3;
	Thu,  6 Dec 2007 02:57:15 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 45118-04; Thu,  6 Dec 2007 02:57:11 -0400 (AST)
Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net
	[207.173.203.159])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7372E004B;
	Thu,  6 Dec 2007 02:57:11 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [192.168.1.226] (or-69-34-217-90.sta.embarqhsd.net
	[69.34.217.90]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lB66v7PB011691
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:57:10 -0800
Message-ID: <47579D4A.9000207@commandprompt.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:57:14 -0800
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (Windows/20070809)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Uniform policy for author credits in contrib module
	documentation?
References: <3393.1196917132@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<47579ADB.4000606@commandprompt.com>
	<5121.1196924043@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <5121.1196924043@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0
	(lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]);
	Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:57:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200712/20
X-Sequence-Number: 4688

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> ...Further those who have provided reasonable contribution really should be 
>> mentioned on the contributors page that is up for discussion which would 
>> make the rest of this moot yes?
> 
> I don't have any objection to listing people on the contributors page
> on the strength of their work on contrib modules.  But that seems
> orthogonal to the question of what should be in the SGML docs ...

All I was saying is I don't think we need the redundancy :). E.g; if 
they are worthy in the docs, they are worthy on the contributors page 
and thus not needed in the docs.

I am not of a strong opinion either way but it seems having names 
plastered everywhere just creates more management of information for no 
particular purpose.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> 
> 			regards, tom lane
>