I'd be happy with the solution described.
I saw a project _somewhere_ using a way more detailed release notes style, of the format: [issue key] [priority] [issue type] reported by [reporter], resolved by [assignee] [summary] But that might be too verbose and I can't find it again anyway. Mike On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> 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 >
