Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I think the best question to ask is: > > "What is the problem we are trying to solve?"
The problem is alluring more patch reviewers, beta testers and bug reporters. One of the offers is to credit them (I'm not exactly clear on what is the group to benefit from this, but the phrasing used in the meeting was "contributors to the release") by having a section somewhere in the release notes with a list of their names. This proposal is different from the previous proposal because their names wouldn't appear next to each feature. So the problem, of course, is collating that list of names, and the point of having a commit template is to have a single, complete source of truth from where to extract the info. Personally I don't see value in having the commit message follow a machine-parseable format; like if you say "Backpatch to" instead of "Backpatch-through:" makes your commit message wrong. I think what was being proposed is to have committers ensure that the commit messages always carried the necessary info (which, as far as I know, they do.) -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
