On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 04:15:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > Seems like it'd be good to standardize how we're declaring that a commit > > contains backwards incompatible changes. I've seen > > - 'BACKWARDS INCOMPATIBLE CHANGE' > > - 'BACKWARD INCOMPATIBILITY' > > - a lot of free-flow text annotations like "as a > > backward-incompatibility", "This makes a backwards-incompatible change" > > > Especially the latter are easy to miss when looking through the commit > > log and I'd bet some get missed when generating the release notes. > > Bruce might have a different opinion, but for my own part I do not think > it would make any difference in creating the release notes. The important > thing is that the information be there in the log entry, not exactly how > it's spelled.
Yes, it doesn't matter as long as it is stated somehow. I don't know of any missing cases due to text differences. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers