On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 01:26:16AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 05:09:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> --details-after Show branch and author info after the commit description > > >> I don't understand the point of that. > > > The release notes have the author at the end of the text. > > So? The committer is very often not the author, so I'm not seeing that > this helps much. Not to mention that the commit message is almost never > directly usable as release note text, anyway. > > >>> --oldest-first Show oldest commits first > > >> This also seems rather useless in comparison to how much it complicates > >> the code. We don't sort release note entries by commit date, so what's > >> it matter? > > > It is very hard to read the commit messages newest-first because they > > are often cummulative, and the order of items of equal weight is > > oldest-first in the release notes. > > I'm unpersuaded here, too, not least because I have never heard this > "oldest first" policy before, and it's certainly never been followed > in any set of release notes I wrote.
So you totally skipped over the concept that reading incremental patches is creation order is helpful. OK, obviously having options that actually help me write the release notes is not a priority for anyone else. I will continue to maintain my own version of the script, to keep the community script clean (and not useful for me). I just backpatched the changes since 9.1 and they applied cleanly to my version. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
