From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft
In-reply-to: <20200512005714.GN4666@momjian.us>
References: <20200512001744.GH4666@momjian.us>
 <20200512003456.GA29166@alvherre.pgsql> <20200512005714.GN4666@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Mon, 11 May 2020 20:57:14 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <11842.1589250233.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 22:23:53 -0400
Message-ID: <11843.1589250233@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Well, are you suggesting a new section because the glossary shouldn't be
> listed under source code, or because you want the function reformatting
> added?  We just need to understand what the purpose is.  We already have
> the glossary listed, since that is new and user-visible.

The implication of what you say here is that "is it user-visible?"
is a criterion for whether to release-note something.  By that logic
we probably *should* relnote the function table layout changes, because
they sure as heck are user-visible.  People might or might not notice
addition of a glossary, but I think just about every user consults
the function/operator tables regularly.

I concur with Alvaro's position that if we are listing documentation
changes, pushing them under "Source Code" is not the way to do it.
That subsection has always been understood to be "stuff you don't
care about if you're not a hacker".

So that sort of leads me to the conclusion that "major documentation
changes" might be a reasonable sub-heading for the release notes.

			regards, tom lane