Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Neil Conway writes: > > > So I think we could make the release notes more useful if we provided a > > bit more detail in each entry, and documented changes more extensively. > > We could also make better use of SGML, for example by adding <xref>s to > > the release notes where applicable. I think we also need to *really* > > maintain the release notes incrementally during 7.5 development, rather > > than having Bruce summarize the CVS logs at the end. IMHO, every patch > > that makes a significant change should update the release notes, when > > the patch is applied. > > I've been pushing this agenda for a few releases now, but some people have > been, er, boycotting it. I think, too, that release notes *must* be
If they _must_ be done the way you suggest, why have we been able to generate reliable release notes all these years? Basically, I think release notes are more efficiently written in batch mode, meaning all at once --- sure, we could do it incrementally, but it is more work to fiddle with it in pieces. I want people to focus on reliable commit messages and I can handle the release notes part. The one advantage of incremental is that folks can see what we have added so far, but it doesn't seem worth the extra work. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
