On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 06:59:18PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 18:56, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 05:09:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>>> --details-after Show branch and author info after the commit description
> >>>> I don't understand the point of that.
> >>> The release notes have the author at the end of the text.
> >> So? The committer is very often not the author, so I'm not seeing that
> >> this helps much. Not to mention that the commit message is almost never
> >> directly usable as release note text, anyway.
> >>>>> --oldest-first Show oldest commits first
> >>>> This also seems rather useless in comparison to how much it complicates
> >>>> the code. We don't sort release note entries by commit date, so what's
> >>>> it matter?
> >>> It is very hard to read the commit messages newest-first because they
> >>> are often cummulative, and the order of items of equal weight is
> >>> oldest-first in the release notes.
> >> I'm unpersuaded here, too, not least because I have never heard this
> >> "oldest first" policy before, and it's certainly never been followed
> >> in any set of release notes I wrote.
> > Frankly, I think we should just let Bruce do what he wants, as long as
> > he doesn't break the tool for anybody else. It's not like the 20
> > lines of code are costing us anything.
> +1 on the principle.
I agree adding rarely-used options to a tool doesn't make sense, but the
question is what percentage of the git_changelog userbase am I? Also,
do we want to have me use a private tool to make release notes, that
will make it harder for someone else to do it in the future?
> I haven't looked at the actual code to see if it's broken or not, but
> assuming it's not....
I wrote it. ;-)
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-04-26 17:18:10|
|Subject: Re: xReader, double-effort (was: Temporary tables under hot standby)|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2012-04-26 16:59:18|
|Subject: Re: Request to add options to tools/git_changelog|