Greg Smith wrote:
> On 06/24/2011 04:52 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > That tagging is basically what I do on my first pass through the release
> > notes. For the gory details:
> >
> > http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2009.html#March_25_2009
> >
>
> Excellent summary of the process I was trying to suggest might be
> improved; the two most relevant bits:
>
> 3 remove insignificant items 2.7k 1 day
> 4 research and reword items 1k 5 days
>
>
> Some sort of tagging to identify feature changes should drive down the
> time spent on filtering insignificant items. And the person doing the
> commit already has the context you are acquiring later as "research"
> here. Would suggesting they try to write a short description at commit
> time drive it and the "reword" phase time down significantly? Can't say
> for sure, but I wanted to throw the idea out for
> consideration--particularly since solving it well ends up making some of
> this other derived data people would like to see a lot easier to
> generate too.
Most of those five days is tracking down commits where I can't figure
out the user-visible change, or if there is one, and wording things to
be in a consistent voice. Git does allow me to look those up much
faster than CVS.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +