On 01/29/2016 02:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
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.
Before I agree to adding fixed format lines to my commits, I'd like to know exactly what people
would want to do with the information. "Bunch of work that probably could be automated"
doesn't cut it. For example, if I tag someone as "Reviewed-by", does it mean that his
name will automatically appear in the release notes? Or if there's a bug, is the reviewer then
somehow responsible for missing it?
As a way of saying "thank you", I like a personalised, nuanced, message much
better. True, we can do both. A good thing about processing the commit messages manually
e.g for compiling release notes is that there's human judgement on what to include. Of
course, that's a lot of work. Which is why I'd like to hear from whoever wants to make
use of these lines to explain in more detail what information they need, and what they
would do with it, to make sure that what we add is actually useful, and that we don't add
noise to the commit messages unnecessarily.
I think the best question to ask is:
"What is the problem we are trying to solve?"
"A bunch of work that probably could be automated"
Does not answer that question.
Joshua D. Drake
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: