On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:11 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@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 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. > > As things stand, I feel like the question of authorship and credit > > complicates the question of making the release notes useful, which is > > unfortunate. (Not sure what can be done about that.) > > That part I always need big help with, particularly with multiple > commits being lumped into a single release note entry. I just can't > tell which commit is more important when knowing what order to list the > names. I have that problem big-time with the partition commits. I understand that it's a difficult job. It's inevitable that there will need to be corrections. You don't appear to be particularly receptive to feedback, which makes the process harder for everyone -- even in instances where you make the right call. I don't think that I am alone in seeing it this way. -- Peter Geoghegan
