I'd prefer just notes from the latest major release in the CHANGES file. You could always call for a vote on this. :)
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/20/14, 10:23 AM, Keith Turner wrote: > >> >> There have been a lot of good ideas mentioned. What do we want to do >>>> for >>>> >>>>> >>>1.5.1? I would not be opposed to waiting a few days on the 1.5.1 >>>>> release >>>>> >>>if someone wants to create nice user friendly release notes. Or for >>>>> >>>1.5.1 >>>>> >>>we could just continue to do what was done for 1.4.X releases. For >>>>> >>>1.6.0 >>>>> >>>I think we should create a user friendly summary of whats important >>>>> in >>>>> >>>the >>>>> >>>release. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>I'd prefer to not hold up 1.5.1 for something like this, and would >>>> rather >>>> >>just follow suite with 1.4. By this, you mean having all CHANGES from >>>> 1.4.X >>>> >>and 1.5.0 in addition to the 1.5.1 changes, correct? Is this >>>> acceptable to >>>> >>everyone? I know there were other suggestions made and don't want to >>>> >>prematurely squash discussion. >>>> >> >>>> >>> > >>> >I was thinking taking the 1.5.0 changes file and adding the 1.5.1 stuff >>> to >>> >it. If we did anything w/ 1.4, we would would only want to take 1.4.0 >>> >changes and add that after 1.5.0. Not all changes in 1.4.[1.2.3.4] are >>> in >>> >1.5 series and any changes that are in both are hopefully marked >>> properly >>> >in jira and already in the 1.5.X list. Since the 1.4.0 changes were not >>> >listed in 1.5.0, I am not neutral on adding that in 1.5.1. >>> > >>> >> s/not neutral/not not neutral/ >> >> >> > Because that clarification makes things simpler :P > > I'm still unsure if 1.5.0 did not contain 1.4 changes intentionally or by > omission. I feel like Christopher had said that was unintentional, but I'm > not sure anymore. I'm not super opinionated on whether or not 1.5 contains > 1.4 changes. I can see arguments for and against doing it and am fine > seeing it either way. > > Overall, I'd rather just get to some consensus on the subject. >
