On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 01:26:16AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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.
So you totally skipped over the concept that reading incremental patches
is creation order is helpful.
OK, obviously having options that actually help me write the release
notes is not a priority for anyone else. I will continue to maintain my
own version of the script, to keep the community script clean (and not
useful for me). I just backpatched the changes since 9.1 and they
applied cleanly to my version.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
