Re: standardized backwards incompatibility tag for commits

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: standardized backwards incompatibility tag for commits
Date: 2017-03-28 02:51:13
Message-ID: 20170328025113.GB20361@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 04:15:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Seems like it'd be good to standardize how we're declaring that a commit
> > contains backwards incompatible changes. I've seen
> > - 'BACKWARDS INCOMPATIBLE CHANGE'
> > - 'BACKWARD INCOMPATIBILITY'
> > - a lot of free-flow text annotations like "as a
> > backward-incompatibility", "This makes a backwards-incompatible change"
>
> > Especially the latter are easy to miss when looking through the commit
> > log and I'd bet some get missed when generating the release notes.
>
> Bruce might have a different opinion, but for my own part I do not think
> it would make any difference in creating the release notes. The important
> thing is that the information be there in the log entry, not exactly how
> it's spelled.

Yes, it doesn't matter as long as it is stated somehow. I don't know of
any missing cases due to text differences.

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

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-03-28 02:51:53 Re: logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2017-03-28 02:50:50 Re: Crash on promotion when recovery.conf is renamed