On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 18:56, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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.
>
> Frankly, I think we should just let Bruce do what he wants, as long as
> he doesn't break the tool for anybody else. It's not like the 20
> lines of code are costing us anything.
+1 on the principle.
I haven't looked at the actual code to see if it's broken or not, but
assuming it's not....
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
