accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] CHANGES Documents
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:41:54 GMT
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I think that if an issue has commits against it should be marked for the
> > release and closed.  If needed edit the issue to align with what was
> > commited and open follow on issues if needed.
> >
> > +1
>
> My reasoning behind this that I rely on jira to understand whats in a
release.   Maybe this is a flawed approach on my part and using the git
logs would be better.  Even so I would still like the keep whats in jira as
sane as possible.


> >
> > > On Feb 19, 2014 7:01 PM, "Josh Elser" <josh.elser@gmail.com> 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] http://accumulo.apache.org/releasing.html
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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