On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On m?n, 2011-09-12 at 09:43 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> > > Writing the release notes is really the main part of the work. Bundling >> > > the release takes 15 minutes, writing the announcement takes 15 minutes >> > > (copy and paste), writing the release notes takes about 2 days. >> > >> > Yeah, but this shaved a lot of effort/delay off doing the final release >> > notes. >> >> It did? AFAICT, the final release notes were created from scratch and >> the alpha release notes deleted. > > Yes, that is what happened. I did the 9.1 release notes from scratch, > and Robert Haas looked over the alpha notes and mine and found mine more > complete. He did move some wording from the alpha releases into the > final release notes. I think Robert has the best perspective on this > issue.
I don't have much of an opinion on this, honestly. I think that whoever did the alpha release notes tried to hit the highlights, whereas Bruce went for something more in-depth. You could make an argument for either approach. I think if the alpha release notes were done with a clear idea in mind of producing something like what Bruce turned out, it wouldn't be necessary for Bruce to do it over again. The problem is that once you start leaving things out, it's very difficult to figure out exactly what got left out without redoing the whole process ab initio. On the flip side, I cross-referenced the alpha release notes with Bruce's, and found a few things that Bruce had mysteriously omitted or to which he had given short shrift. So there is potentially at least a little bit of value in doing the process twice - it helps you catch things that may have gotten dropped. Having done some work on this, I do NOT believe the previously-offered contention that this work can't be done incrementally. I think it could. After each CF, Bruce, or someone else, could go through all the commits and produce a list of items. As the release wore on, it might be necessary to subdivide some of the categories or recategorize things, but that I don't think it would be unmanageable. The whole process seems reasonably straightforward, just somewhat time-consuming. The main challenge seems to be making sure you don't lose things. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers