accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] CHANGES Documents
Date Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:49:08 GMT
I'd be happy with the solution described.


I saw a project _somewhere_ using a way more detailed release notes style,
of the format:

[issue key] [priority] [issue type] reported by [reporter], resolved by
[assignee]
[summary]

But that might be too verbose and I can't find it again anyway.

Mike


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> The CHANGES document that is included in an Accumulo release contains some
> set of changes from a previous release which presently contain the
> following information:
>
> 1) Issue Type (Task, Bug, Feature, etc)
> 2) Issue Number (ACCUMULO-1234)
> 3) Issue Subject
>
> There have been various preferences expressed, primarily over IRC, on
> which changes should be contained and how they should be formatted. The
> largest consensus, and what I believe we should do, is as follows:
>
> Entries in a CHANGES file should contain issues, delimited by minor
> version within the major version[1], grouped by issue type. The minor
> version changes sorted be sorted in reverse order (e.g. 1.5.2, 1.5.1, then
> 1.5.0). Changes from the previous major version (e.g. 1.4.x) would *not* be
> included in this CHANGES file.
>
> Opinions? The results of this discussion will be documented on the
> release-making page[2] of the website for future reference.
>
> - Josh
>
> [1] Major and minor version here is referred to as Y and Z of version
> strings of the form: X.Y.Z (not as prescribed by semver, proper)
> [2] http://accumulo.apache.org/releasing.html
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message