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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
