On February 2, 2015 9:38:43 PM CET, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The existing release notes are not conveniently searchable, for sure; >> they're not in a single file, and they don't show up on a single page >> on the Web, and I've never seen a PDF-searching tool that didn't >suck. >> So I'm bemused by Robert's insistence that he wants that format to >support >> searches. As I said, I find it far more convenient to search the >output >> of "git log" and/or src/tools/git_changelog --- I keep text files of >those >> around for exactly that purpose. > >I normally search in one of two ways. Sometimes a grep the sgml; >other times, I go to, say, >http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-4.html and then >edit the URL to take me back to 9.3, 9.2, 9.1, etc.
FWIW I the same. Git log is great if you want all detail. But often enough the more condensed format of the release notes is helpful. Say, a customer has problems after migrating to a new version. It's quite a bit faster to read the section about incompatibilities than travel through the git log. There's a reason the release notes exist. Given that they're apparently useful, it doesn't seem strange that devs sometimes read them... --- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
