accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] CHANGES Documents
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:10:27 GMT
On 2/20/14, 10:00 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Sean Busbey<busbey+lists@cloudera.com>wrote:
>
>> >On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
>> >
>>> > >
>>> > >value people are actually getting from this file. I strongly suspect
>>> > >that, if anything, people just want to know the simple answers "What's
>>> > >New?" and "Does this fix my bug yet?" questions, and I don't think
>>> > >this file answers either of those questions well in any of the
>>> > >previous releases. Nor do I think this format lends itself easily to
>>> > >answering those questions. A per-release "Release Notes" section on
>>> > >the website would probably be more useful for that purpose, with a
>>> > >footnote reference to SCM/JIRA for the full list of changes. But, is
>>> > >there another role the CHANGES file is expected to play which I'm
>>> > >overlooking?
>>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >The main one I can think of is "Will this break my already working system
>> >in some other way?"
>> >
>> >So in addition to your two above major areas, I'd say a section on known
>> >backwards incompatible changes[1] would cover things.
>> >
> I would really like to see this type of information called out in release
> notes.

Agreed


> There have been a lot of good ideas mentioned.  What do we want to do for
> 1.5.1?  I would not be opposed to waiting a few days on the 1.5.1 release
> if someone wants to create nice user friendly release notes.  Or for 1.5.1
> we could just continue to do what was done for 1.4.X releases.   For 1.6.0
> I think we should create a user friendly summary of whats important in the
> release.
>

I'd prefer to not hold up 1.5.1 for something like this, and would 
rather just follow suite with 1.4. By this, you mean having all CHANGES 
from 1.4.X and 1.5.0 in addition to the 1.5.1 changes, correct? Is this 
acceptable to everyone? I know there were other suggestions made and 
don't want to prematurely squash discussion.

For 1.6.0, I would be happy to play around with some static-content 
generation tools (I like jekyll[1], personally, but I'll have to try out 
a few for our needs. We could even try to reuse the ASF CMS codebase) 
and see if we can get a markdown-generated document going that we can 
create a nice release-notes page from.

[1] http://jekyllrb.com/

Mime
View raw message