| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-core <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release |
| Date: | 2015-06-01 16:32:21 |
| Message-ID: | 25637.1433176341@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> writes:
> FWIW, I've always wondered why we don't create an empty next-version
> release notes as part of stamping a major release and expect patch
> authors to add to it. I realize that likely creates merge conflicts, but
> that seems less work than doing it all at the end. (Or maybe each patch
> just creates a file and the final process is pulling all the files
> together.)
There are good reasons to write the release notes all in one batch:
otherwise you don't get any uniformity of editorial style.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-06-01 16:34:43 | Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-06-01 16:12:04 | Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release |