On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 07:31:21PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:11 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > Whether or not you include more details is not what I care about here > > > -- I *agree* that this is insignificant. > > > Well, we can move the entire item up to the incompatibility section, but > > that seems unbalanced since the incompatibility is so small relative to > > the entire item, and it is rare, as you mentioned. It also seems odd to > > create a stand-alone incompatibility item that really is part of a later > > item already in the release notes. > > That is what we've always done. The list has always been very long, > with individual items that are on average totally insignificant. > Breaking with that pattern in this instance will be confusing to > users.
I have no idea what you are suggesting above. > > I think I have understood the nuances, as listed above --- I just don't > > agree with the solution. > > To be clear, I don't expect you to agree with the solution. > > Another thing that you missed from my patch is that bugfix commit > 9b10926263d831fac5758f1493c929a49b55669b shouldn't be listed. Why should it not be listed? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
