On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 15:53, Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes, but it requires significant manual filtering *now* to produce it >> as well. > > No, it requires 30 seconds per commit that is worthy of mention. > Dropping the changelog will mean that work gets pushed to me (or > Guillaume) to do immediately prior to release, in a way that could > take a few hours to extract and format the data appropriately. At a > time when we're usually pretty darn busy already.
Well, fair enough, i guess the answer is "yes" to the question "will you veto this" :-) BTW, if we're keeping it, it would certainly be good if there was a useful policy for how to deal with it wrt back branches. Perhaps there is one today and I just don't know it? Looking at it now it seems that the head version has a mix of head and backbranches and backbranch versions has nothing? ISTM that's pretty hard to parse - thus I'm not even sure that's how it's meant to be now? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
