Fix contributor name-related inconsistencies in release-12.sgml

Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> writes:

While translating Release Notes for version 12 I found some
inconsistencies with contributor names.

Proposed changes seem reasonable from here. Pushed, thanks!

regards, tom lane

On 2019-09-23 13:08, Alexander Lakhin wrote:

While translating Release Notes for version 12 I found some
inconsistencies with contributor names.
1. Constantine Kuznetsov and Konstantin Kuznetsov are the same person.
2. Sho Kato and Kato Sho too.
3. Takayuki Tsunakawa is present in the Acknowledgments, but Tsunakawa
Takayuki is referred in the change list.
Regarding Japanese names I found that in the Postgres documentation the
given name is mostly specified first. E.g.: Daisuke Higuchi, Haruka
Takatsuka, Hayato Kuroda, Hironobu Suzuki, Keiichi Hirobe, Kenji Uno,...
So I would remove "Kato Sho" because "Sho" is a given name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8D_(given_name)
And change "Tsunakawa Takayuki" to "Takayuki Tsunakawa" because
"Takayuki" is a given name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takayuki

Also, there are other names spelled in the reverse order:
Fujii Masao
Koizumi Satoru
Matsumura Ryo
So I propose a second patch to fix these names too.

We had discussed this in previous years and resolved that we use the
forms that these individuals use when posting to these mailing lists, in
whichever order they prefer. So as far as I'm concerned, the forms
listed in the release notes for PG10 and PG11 are canonical and should
continue to be used.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

On 2019-09-23 13:08, Alexander Lakhin wrote:

While translating Release Notes for version 12 I found some
inconsistencies with contributor names.

We had discussed this in previous years and resolved that we use the
forms that these individuals use when posting to these mailing lists, in
whichever order they prefer. So as far as I'm concerned, the forms
listed in the release notes for PG10 and PG11 are canonical and should
continue to be used.

I have no strong feelings either way, so feel free to undo whatever
you think should be undone.

I have noted that many of our Japanese contributors show a different name
order in their From: line than in their signature/footer, so it's not
entirely clear which preference they're expressing.

regards, tom lane

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 06:52:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

I have no strong feelings either way, so feel free to undo whatever
you think should be undone.

I have noted that many of our Japanese contributors show a different name
order in their From: line than in their signature/footer, so it's not
entirely clear which preference they're expressing.

The formal and official way is to have the family name first, and then
the first name, but I agree with the approach we have to not be too
formal and just list individuals based on how they present themselves
in their emails.

Note: there is no actual concept of middle name in Japan, which brings
its own set of annoying explanations when it comes to do any kind of
applications...
--
Michael

Hello,

ср, 25 сент. 2019 г., 8:10 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>:

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 06:52:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

I have no strong feelings either way, so feel free to undo whatever
you think should be undone.

I have noted that many of our Japanese contributors show a different name
order in their From: line than in their signature/footer, so it's not
entirely clear which preference they're expressing.

The formal and official way is to have the family name first, and then
the first name, but I agree with the approach we have to not be too
formal and just list individuals based on how they present themselves
in their emails.

In fact, here in Russia the "Family-name Given-name [Patronymic-name]"
order is formal and official too. And in Russian e-mail's (mostly internal,
not for export) you can also encounter such a spelling. But I think it's
not the matter of the person's preference, but rather the matter of
"officiality", and probably, conventions accepted (maybe at the person'
organization).
So if someone will change it's job or status, and will want to use more
official order, I would find it rather strange to see Lasty Firsty amongst
all the other Russian contributors having the given-name-first order.

Best regards,
Alexander

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 00:52 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

On 2019-09-23 13:08, Alexander Lakhin wrote:

While translating Release Notes for version 12 I found some
inconsistencies with contributor names.

We had discussed this in previous years and resolved that we use the
forms that these individuals use when posting to these mailing lists, in
whichever order they prefer. So as far as I'm concerned, the forms
listed in the release notes for PG10 and PG11 are canonical and should
continue to be used.

I have no strong feelings either way, so feel free to undo whatever
you think should be undone.

I have noted that many of our Japanese contributors show a different name
order in their From: line than in their signature/footer, so it's not
entirely clear which preference they're expressing.

I would say use the one in the signature in those cases. My guess would be
that that part is under control of the individual, but the from field is in
control of the HR department or whomever controls the name order in the
catalogs of their big company.

It's fairly common here, for example, to have "lastname, first" in the
from, but nobody would use that in a scenario like this. The reason
typically being wanting "phone book sorting" in the company wide address
book, which does sort on lastname. As an employee people can typically
control the name order in their signature, but not the address book.

The situation in Asia may of course be very different, as it often is, but
I think the general rule of who controls the order where still applies.

/Magnus

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 08:13:16AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:

I would say use the one in the signature in those cases. My guess would be that
that part is under control of the individual, but the from field is in control
of the HR department or whomever controls the name order in the catalogs of
their big company.

It's fairly common here, for example, to have "lastname, first" in the from,
but nobody would use that in a scenario like this. The reason typically being
wanting "phone book sorting" in the company wide address book, which does sort
on lastname. As an employee people can typically control the name order in
their signature, but not the address book.�

The situation in Asia may of course be very different, as it often is, but I
think the general rule of who controls the order where still applies.�

Uh, we are going to need for committers to handle this issue since it is
unlikely we can research email signatures when writing the release
notes.

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

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

Uh, we are going to need for committers to handle this issue since it is
unlikely we can research email signatures when writing the release
notes.

Committers are not going to handle it with any consistency either.
In the end it's going to be the job of whoever is making the
list-of-contributors at the end of a release cycle. So far that's
been Peter.

regards, tom lane