On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 03:19:04PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 02:05:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > > I agree adding rarely-used options to a tool doesn't make sense, but the > > > question is what percentage of the git_changelog userbase am I? > > > > 50% I think. The only thing that's really concerning me here is that > > the reverse-sort option seems likely to be bug-inducing, and I really > > don't grasp that it has real value. But whatever. > > Well, newest first would show this: > > add feature D to feature ABC > add feature C to feature AB > add feature B to feature A > add feature A > > More logical (oldest-first) is: > > add feature A > add feature B to feature A > add feature C to feature AB > add feature D to feature ABC > > Also consider that A is usually the big, clear commit message, and B,C,D > are just minor adjustments with more brief commits, which might require > adjusting the release note item for feature A. When they are in > newest-first order, that is much harder.
Oh, one more thing. The contributor names appended to each release note item usually has to be listed A,B,C,D because A is usually the most significant contribution. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
