Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Tomas Vondra > <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Why can't we do both? That is, have a free-form text with the nuances, and >> then Reviewed-By listing the main reviewers? The first one is for humans, >> the other one for automated tools.
> I'm not objecting to or endorsing any specific proposal, just asking > what we want to do about this. I think the trick if we do it that way > will be to avoid having it seem like too much duplication, but there > may be a way to manage that. FWIW, I'm a bit suspicious of the idea that we need to make the commit messages automated-tool-friendly. What tools are there that would need to extract this info, and would we trust them if they didn't understand "nuances"? I'm on board with Bruce's template as being a checklist of points to be sure to cover when composing a commit message. I'm not sure we need fixed-format rules. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers