Re: Request to add options to tools/git_changelog

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Request to add options to tools/git_changelog
Date: 2012-04-26 19:19:04
Message-ID: 20120426191904.GD23228@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 02:05:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > 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?
>
> 50% I think. The only thing that's really concerning me here is that
> the reverse-sort option seems likely to be bug-inducing, and I really
> don't grasp that it has real value. But whatever.

Well, newest first would show this:

add feature D to feature ABC
add feature C to feature AB
add feature B to feature A
add feature A

More logical (oldest-first) is:

add feature A
add feature B to feature A
add feature C to feature AB
add feature D to feature ABC

Also consider that A is usually the big, clear commit message, and B,C,D
are just minor adjustments with more brief commits, which might require
adjusting the release note item for feature A. When they are in
newest-first order, that is much harder.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2012-04-26 22:48:01 Re: Future In-Core Replication
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-04-26 19:08:54 Re: Request to add options to tools/git_changelog