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:

Reply via email to