From: | Jonathan Corbet <corbet(at)lwn(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Deriving release notes from git commit messages |
Date: | 2011-06-27 15:49:14 |
Message-ID: | 20110627094914.7fcb16ff@bike.lwn.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:04 -0400
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As for annotating the commit messages, I think something like:
>
> Reporter: Sam Jones
> Author: Beverly Smith
> Author: Jim Davids
> Reviewer: Fred Block
> Reviewer: Pauline Andrews
Can I just toss in one little note from the sidelines? Various other
projects (Linux kernel at the top of the list) have adopted tags like
Reported-by and Reviewed-by for metadata like this. (Authorship lives in
git itself, with additional authors sometimes ambiguously indicated with
additional Signed-off-by lines). There are tools out there which make use
of those tags now. It would seem that, in the absence of a reason to make
up your own tags, it might make sense to be consistent with other projects?
Thanks,
jon
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-27 15:54:28 | Re: spinlock contention |
Previous Message | Shigeru Hanada | 2011-06-27 14:47:51 | Re: per-column generic option |