accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] CHANGES Documents
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 02:18:46 GMT
I think excluding tickets that aren't resolved is a good idea, but we'll
need to document that there may be commits that reference issues not
present in CHANGES because we are CtR.
On Feb 19, 2014 7:01 PM, "Josh Elser" <> wrote:

> One extra thing: in the CHANGES that I generated, I excluded any tickets
> that didn't have a status of "Closed" or "Resolved".
> Not sure what people think about that.
> On 2/19/14, 1:30 PM, Josh Elser 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]

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