On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 10/01/2015 07:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Playing devil's advocate ... would this really do much other than bloat >> the release notes? The entire assumption of this thread is that people >> don't, or don't want to, use the release notes to find out what got fixed; >> they'd rather search a tracker. > > It's not a question of "rather", it's a question of how searchable the > release notes are, which is "not really at all". Yes, you can scan the > release notes for the latest update, but consider users who have an > issue and are running 9.2.7. Reasonably enough, they want to know that > their issue is fixed in 9.2.13 (or in 9.4 if it turns out to be a > feature, not a bug) before they ask their boss for a downtime. Figuring > that out now is really hard.
Yeah -- so maybe it's the wrong path. The bugs/commits list are very parse-able for important elements and should be able to be slurped into a database for tracking and further insertion of metadata. A 'commit tracker' if you will; it would organize commits and relevant bug reports (so long as they could be linked by certain conventions). It's a read only system except for what other human inputs you'd want to arrange for other processes (such as generating release notes which might require cleaned up language). merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers