httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm>
Subject Re: svn commit: r954862 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES
Date Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:20:34 GMT
On 15 Jun 2010, at 4:21 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:

> trunk CHANGES needs to track fixes/enhancements since the last alpha,
> so the candidates for pruning would be in the section "Changes with
> Apache 2.3.0".
>
> attached is a patch to prune 2.3.0 changes which were backported to
> some 2.2.x release; look reasonable?
>
> something that would make future-2.4 CHANGES more usable would be to
> collapse stuff like {"introduce mod_foo", "fix bug1 in mod_foo", "fix
> bug2 in mod_foo", "make enhancement1 to mod_foo"} within the same
> release into one mod_foo entry, and to axe entries which are for
> implementation details that users don't care about (or at least, if
> there is an external implication then document that and not the
> implementation detail)
> <2.3.0-backports.txt>

Are we not going overboard on pruning the CHANGES file?

Wearing my end user hat, had I been brave and installed v2.3.5, and  
wanted to consider v2.3.6, I'm going to download the tarball, open it  
up, and look at the CHANGES file. Where I won't find a complete list  
of changes between v2.3.5 and v2.3.6. The kicker of course is that I  
won't know these changes are missing, after all, I am a brave  
webmaster, not a C coder or a developer, I don't subscribe to the dev  
list, and I haven't read this or any other thread on this issue, and  
the CHANGES file has been around for over a decade, and there is no  
reason to suspect it works differently.

Of course, you might include a sentence at the top of CHANGES saying  
"some changes have been backported to v2.2". Trouble is, which  
changes? Which changes were backported before v2.3.5 was released?  
Which after? No idea.

I entirely understand the idea behind pruning the CHANGES file of  
entries older than the point at which trunk was branched to form v2.2,  
to ensure CHANGES did not grow boundlessly. A simple "this file  
continues on this branch" did the trick, and CHANGES file resets to  
zero size, and we start again.

By way of comparison, here is the CHANGES file in httpd v2.2, which  
contains lots of entries over the life of the branch, and can be  
assumed to be large:

-rw-r--r--  1 minfrin  501  108719 Jun  6 01:48 CHANGES

And here is our configure script:

-rwxr-xr-x  1 minfrin  501  654523 Sep 23  2009 configure

I don't see any benefit in attempting to shorten this file any  
further, given that it is short enough already. A clear and  
unambiguous CHANGES file is something useful to end users, however the  
current CHANGES file has holes in it, and is as a result of no use to  
end users at all.

Regards,
Graham
--


Mime
View raw message