From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft
Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 09:52:08 -0400
Message-ID: <24479.1588859528@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200507130804.GG3649@momjian.us>
References: <20200505031600.GB21752@momjian.us>
<alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2005050710540.175044@pseudo>
<20200505140055.GC21752@momjian.us>
<alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2005051811320.2183756@pseudo>
<20200506230750.GA3649@momjian.us>
<alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2005070807160.211403@pseudo>
<20200507130804.GG3649@momjian.us>
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 08:29:55AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> After looking again at the release notes, I do really think that significant
>> documentation changes do not belong to the "Source code" section but should
>> be in separate "Documentation" section, and that more items should be listed
>> there, because they represent a lot of not-so-fun work, especially Tom's
>> restructuration of tables, and possibly others.
> Uh, can someone else give an opinion on this? I am not sure how hard or
> un-fun an item is should be used as criteria.
Historically we don't document documentation changes at all, do we?
It seems (a) pointless and (b) circular.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, bruce@momjian.us, coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
Subject: Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft
In-Reply-To: <24479.1588859528@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox