From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Thu, 07 May 2020 09:08:04 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <24478.1588859528.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 09:52:08 -0400
Message-ID: <24479.1588859528@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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 signif=
icant
>> documentation changes do not belong to the "Source code" section but sh=
ould
>> be in separate "Documentation" section, and that more items should be l=
isted
>> 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