[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11731?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14481354#comment-14481354
]
Colin Patrick McCabe commented on HADOOP-11731:
-----------------------------------------------
bq. Steve said: I don't think CHANGES.TXT works that well. We may think it
does, but that's because without the tooling to validate it, stuff doesn't get
added and so it can omit a lot of work. Then there's the problem of merging
across branches, and dealing with race conditions/commit conflict between other
people's work and yours.
Absolutely. CHANGES.txt does not work that well for many reasons. It's often
incorrect, as Allen pointed out, since it's entirely manually created. It
creates many spurious merge conflicts.
bq. Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze wrote: Again, I do not oppose using the new tool.
However, we do need a transition period to see if it indeed works well.
I agree. However, given that we are going to be maintaining branch-2 for at
least another 2 years (we don't even have a 3.x release roadmap yet), it seems
like that transition period should be in the 2.8 timeframe. It would also be
nice to move to this system for point releases. Otherwise, we end up doing
CHANGES.txt anyway for backports.
> Rework the changelog and releasenotes
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-11731
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11731
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: documentation
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0
> Reporter: Allen Wittenauer
> Assignee: Allen Wittenauer
> Fix For: 3.0.0
>
> Attachments: HADOOP-11731-00.patch, HADOOP-11731-01.patch,
> HADOOP-11731-03.patch, HADOOP-11731-04.patch, HADOOP-11731-05.patch,
> HADOOP-11731-06.patch, HADOOP-11731-07.patch
>
>
> The current way we generate these build artifacts is awful. Plus they are
> ugly and, in the case of release notes, very hard to pick out what is
> important.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
