On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 15:59, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 15:53, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, but it requires significant manual filtering *now* to produce it
>>> as well.
>>
>> No, it requires 30 seconds per commit that is worthy of mention.
>> Dropping the changelog will mean that work gets pushed to me (or
>> Guillaume) to do immediately prior to release, in a way that could
>> take a few hours to extract and format the data appropriately. At a
>> time when we're usually pretty darn busy already.
>
> Well, fair enough, i guess the answer is "yes" to the question "will
> you veto this" :-)
>
> BTW, if we're keeping it, it would certainly be good if there was a
> useful policy for how to deal with it wrt back branches. Perhaps there
> is one today and I just don't know it? Looking at it now it seems that
> the head version has a mix of head and backbranches and backbranch
> versions has nothing? ISTM that's pretty hard to parse - thus I'm not
> even sure that's how it's meant to be now?
Actually, I take it back.
The CHANGELOG on the REL-1_12_PATCHES has some changes for 1.12.1,
1.12.2, 1.12.3. And surprisingly enough also 1.14.0, which certainly
didn't exist back then...
Which kind of proves my point about the confusion;)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
