commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [MATH] FastMath bug fixes - should they be in changes.xml?
Date Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:45:14 GMT
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:30 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24 January 2011 13:01,  <luc.maisonobe@free.fr> wrote:
>>> Hi Sebb,
>>>
>>> ----- "sebb" <sebbaz@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Just had a sudden thought - FastMath is new to 2.2 and 3.0, so does
>>>> it
>>>> make sense to list all its bug fixes in the changes document?
>>>
>>> As long as their are Jira issues on them, I think they should be referenced.
>>
>> But the point is, that these are not changes from the previous
>> version, because there was no previous version.
>>
>> BTW, I've marked all the issues with appliesTo and Fixfor as 2.2&3.0,
>> so it's easy to see that the code was fixed before initial release.
>>
> We have run into this before in [math] and other components.  I agree
> with Luc that it is better to list the changes in the changelog in
> chronological order.
>

I vaguely recall editing generated release notes in the past to
mention addition of new classes, but drop changes to them before first
release.  That is another option.  We could leave references to all
tickets in the changelog, but then edit the release notes to only
mention the addition of the classes.

Phil

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message