X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F93D1B543
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:09:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 03290-01
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:08:47 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (momjian.navpoint.com [207.106.42.251])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0710ED1B51B
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:08:42 -0300 (ADT)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9OE8XN17038;
	Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200310241408.h9OE8XN17038@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: 7.4 compatibility question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310241455430.17076-100000@peter.localdomain>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>,
	Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL108 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200310/1127
X-Sequence-Number: 45809

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Neil Conway writes:
> 
> > So I think we could make the release notes more useful if we provided a
> > bit more detail in each entry, and documented changes more extensively.
> > We could also make better use of SGML, for example by adding <xref>s to
> > the release notes where applicable. I think we also need to *really*
> > maintain the release notes incrementally during 7.5 development, rather
> > than having Bruce summarize the CVS logs at the end. IMHO, every patch
> > that makes a significant change should update the release notes, when
> > the patch is applied.
> 
> I've been pushing this agenda for a few releases now, but some people have
> been, er, boycotting it.  I think, too, that release notes *must* be

If they _must_ be done the way you suggest, why have we been able to
generate reliable release notes all these years?

Basically, I think release notes are more efficiently written in batch
mode, meaning all at once --- sure, we could do it incrementally, but it
is more work to fiddle with it in pieces.

I want people to focus on reliable commit messages and I can handle the
release notes part.  The one advantage of incremental is that folks can
see what we have added so far, but it doesn't seem worth the extra work.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073