On 2015-06-29 17:05:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > +1. Helps confirm which items are meant to correspond to which commits.
That's what made me think of it. > In case you didn't realize it already, the stuff I put into the minor > release notes is from src/tools/git_changelog. Dunno whether we need > to use that exact format for major releases though; there's no need to > identify branches in major release notes. I'd recognized the format, but I didn't want to exactly go that way. As you say, the branch information is redundant. Haven't yet thought much about the format, maybe in the style of git log --pretty='format:[%h] %aN [%ci]: %s' upstream/master I'd personally like to see the hash and the time, the rest isn't particularly important to me. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
