On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 07:31:21PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:11 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > Whether or not you include more details is not what I care about here
> > > -- I *agree* that this is insignificant.
>
> > Well, we can move the entire item up to the incompatibility section, but
> > that seems unbalanced since the incompatibility is so small relative to
> > the entire item, and it is rare, as you mentioned. It also seems odd to
> > create a stand-alone incompatibility item that really is part of a later
> > item already in the release notes.
>
> That is what we've always done. The list has always been very long,
> with individual items that are on average totally insignificant.
> Breaking with that pattern in this instance will be confusing to
> users.
I have no idea what you are suggesting above.
> > I think I have understood the nuances, as listed above --- I just don't
> > agree with the solution.
>
> To be clear, I don't expect you to agree with the solution.
>
> Another thing that you missed from my patch is that bugfix commit
> 9b10926263d831fac5758f1493c929a49b55669b shouldn't be listed.
Why should it not be listed?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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 +
