On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 03:19:04PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 02:05:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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.
Oh, one more thing. The contributor names appended to each release note
item usually has to be listed A,B,C,D because A is usually the most
significant contribution.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
