Hi, On 2019-07-16 10:33:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > > As mentioned on different threads, "Discussion" is the only one we had > > a strong agreement with. Could it be possible to consider things like > > Author, Reported-by, Reviewed-by or Backpatch-through for example and > > extend to that? The first three ones are useful for parsing the > > commit logs. The fourth one is handy so as there is no need to look > > at a full log tree with git log --graph or such, which is something I > > do from time to time to guess down to where a fix has been applied (I > > tend to avoid git_changelog). > > FWIW, I'm one of the people who prefer prose for this. The backpatching > bit is a good example of why, because my log messages typically don't > just say "backpatch to 9.6" but something about why that was the cutoff.
They don't preclude each other though. E.g. it'd be sensible to have both > Per gripe from Ken Tanzer. Back-patch to 9.6. The issue exists > further back, but before 9.6 the code looks very different and it > doesn't actually know whether the "var" name matches anything, > so I desisted from trying to fix it. and "Backpatch: 9.6-" or such. > I am in favor of trying to consistently mention that a patch is being > back-patched, rather than expecting people to rely on git metadata > to find that out. But I don't see that a rigid "Backpatch" tag format > makes anything easier there. If you need to know that mechanically, > git_changelog is way more reliable. I find it useful to have a quick place to scan in a commit message. It's a lot quicker to focus on the last few lines with tags, and see a 'Backpatch: 9.6-' than to parse a potentially long commit message. If I'm then still interested in the commit, I'll then read the commit. Greetings, Andres Freund