On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 15:59, Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Actually, I take it back. The CHANGELOG on the REL-1_12_PATCHES has some changes for 1.12.1, 1.12.2, 1.12.3. And surprisingly enough also 1.14.0, which certainly didn't exist back then... Which kind of proves my point about the confusion;) -- 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
