On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 18:56, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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. > > Frankly, I think we should just let Bruce do what he wants, as long as > he doesn't break the tool for anybody else. It's not like the 20 > lines of code are costing us anything.
+1 on the principle. I haven't looked at the actual code to see if it's broken or not, but assuming it's not.... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
