Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

2016-05-08 Thread David G. Johnston
On Sunday, May 8, 2016, Tom Lane wrote: > [ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ] This is where the link to the online version was; reading the sgml and/or compiling ends up being a bit more than I wanted to do to review these. > > "David

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

2016-05-08 Thread Gavin Flower
On 09/05/16 10:22, Tom Lane wrote: Gavin Flower writes: On 09/05/16 08:56, Tom Lane wrote: Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not sure that other possible ways of wording this would be less awkward. To me the phrase "which see"

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

2016-05-08 Thread Tom Lane
Gavin Flower writes: > On 09/05/16 08:56, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not >> sure that other possible ways of wording this would be less awkward. > To me the phrase "which see" is plain weird, at least in

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

2016-05-08 Thread Gavin Flower
On 09/05/16 08:56, Tom Lane wrote: [ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ] "David G. Johnston" writes: "...replacement_sort_tuples, which see for further details." needs rewording. Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

2016-05-08 Thread Tom Lane
[ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ] "David G. Johnston" writes: > "...replacement_sort_tuples, which see for further details." needs > rewording. Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not sure that

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

2016-05-07 Thread David G. Johnston
On Friday, May 6, 2016, Tom Lane wrote: > If you're not tired of reviewing release notes (I'm sure getting a bit > tired of writing them), see > > > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=eb7de00ac2d282263541ece849ec71e2809e9467 > > guaibasaurus

[HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

2016-05-06 Thread Tom Lane
If you're not tired of reviewing release notes (I'm sure getting a bit tired of writing them), see http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=eb7de00ac2d282263541ece849ec71e2809e9467 guaibasaurus should have 'em up on the web in an hour or so, too, at

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

2016-02-07 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > Bruce is the main author of this patch. I used what he did as a base > to build a version correct for MSVC. Fixed, thanks. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

2016-02-05 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I've done a first pass at next week's release notes; please review. > > Committed at > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=7008e70d105b572821406744ce080771b74c06ab > and should be visible in the

[HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

2016-02-05 Thread Tom Lane
I've done a first pass at next week's release notes; please review. Committed at http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=7008e70d105b572821406744ce080771b74c06ab and should be visible in the website's devel-branch docs after the next guaibasaurus buildfarm run, due a