On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 04:15:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund 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
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund 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
Andres Freund 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"
Hi,
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-inco