On 01/28/2016 09:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Tomas Vondra
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
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
Well, I think what people are asking for is precisely a fixed format,
and I do think there is value in that. It's nice to capture the
nuance, but the nuance is going to get flattened out anyway when the
release notes are created. If we all agree to use a fixed format,
then a bunch of work there that probably has to be done manually can
be automated. However, if we all agree to use a fixed format except
for you, we might as well just forget the whole thing, because the
percentage of commits that are done by you is quite high.
I have no prejudice in this area, other than one in favor of any rules
being fairly precise. As for nuances, I guess they can be specified in
the commit message. The one thing I do find annoying from time to time
is the limit on subject size. Sometimes it's very difficult to be
sufficiently communicative in, say, 50 characters.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: