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 haven't looked at the actual code to see if it's broken or not, but
assuming it's not....
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-04-26 17:05:35|
|Subject: Re: Request to add options to tools/git_changelog|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-04-26 16:57:07|
|Subject: Re: xReader, double-effort (was: Temporary tables under hot standby)|