Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Well we could make it "edit release.txt" which someone will fix up and turn
> into release.sgml later instead.
> I think if you put a big enough separator between entries, say two black
> lines, two dashes, and two more blank lines, it wouldn't even cause merge
> conflicts if it failed -- it would just insert the new entry in the "wrong"
> place which wouldn't really matter.
> Or you could have a release-notes directory and create a small text file in
> there for each major patch.
Andrew had the correct perspective on this: if someone wants a different
release note process, and is willing to expend their *own* cycles on it,
go to it. If the intention is to try to force the existing committers
to expend extra effort for a process change they do not particularly
believe in, don't be surprised by a lack of cooperation.
regards, tom lane