Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Personally I don't see value in having the commit message follow a > > machine-parseable format; like if you say "Backpatch to" instead of > > "Backpatch-through:" makes your commit message wrong. I think what was > > being proposed is to have committers ensure that the commit messages > > always carried the necessary info (which, as far as I know, they do.) > > Well, this gets at one of the problems here, which is that you can't > fix a commit message once the commit has been pushed. Yes, I'm aware that this is a problem. I tried to raise the point that we could use "git notes" to provide additional information after the fact but was quickly made to shut up before it could be recorded in the minutes. If we were to adopt git notes or a similar system(*), we could use those as a mechanism to install the machine-parseable data for each commit, which I think fixes all the problems you point out. (*) Another idea that comes to mind now that you mention this database thingy of yours is to make a table or tables with commits and their associated data, which could initially be populated from the commit message and later updated. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
