We don’t use Yetus to generate release notes in 1.x releases. We use JIRA’s change log generation feature instead. There is no overlap in the 1.5.0 release candidate changes file. I managed fix versions in JIRA for 1.5.0 for that purpose if you recall hundreds of fix version updates a couple of months ago for the first 1.5.0 RC as discussed on dev@ at the time. Should be available in list archives.
On Jun 10, 2019, at 5:46 PM, Guanghao Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The change log there is based on the 1.4.9 one and contains everyone later >> than 1.4.9 or new to 1.5.0. >> > So only generate the release note of 1.5.0 and append it to 1.4.9's release > note, then get a new release note for 1.5.0? If I am not wrong, the yetus > use issue's fix version to generate release note. There are duplicate > issues number if a issus's fix versions has both 1.4.9 and 1.5.0? > > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> 于2019年6月11日周二 上午8:31写道： > >> Maybe we could add a note at the bottom of the release note for each minor >> release line, to mention that this release line contains all the changes in >> the previous minor or major release? >> >> For example, 2.1.0 contains all the changes in 2.0.0, and 2.0.0 contains >> all the changes in 1.0.0. If users are interested they can go to see the >> release note for the previous major or minor release line. >> >> Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> 于2019年6月11日周二 上午12:08写道： >> >>> 1.5.0 will continue the practice. The change log there is based on the >>> 1.4.9 one and contains everyone later than 1.4.9 or new to 1.5.0. >>> >>> The branch-1 releases use the old practice of JIRA generated change logs, >>> not the far more verbose Yetus ones, and even then a list of objects >>> ordered by size is dominated in the largest of sizes by these auto >>> generated CHANGES files, mixed in with generated protobuf and thrift >>> support files. How big would a Yetus generated release notes file be if >> it >>> includes changes all the way back to HBASE-1? >>> >>>>> On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 8:05 AM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Back for the 1.2 release line I tried to include enough information >>>>> that someone looking at the given 1.2 release coming from the prior >>>>> major version would have everything. >>>>> >>>>> That meant: >>>>> >>>>> * 1.0.0 release notes >>>>> * 1.1.0 release notes >>>>> * 1.2.z (for all z 0-12) release notes >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/branch-1.2/CHANGES.txt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, this is how it has been in all releases until 2.1 where I seem to >>>> have broken the practice (I just looked at the 1.4.10 RC and notice >> that >>>> Andrew follows the above practice. 2.0.x has all CHANGES). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I do not know if this was actually useful. This seems like a >>>>> conversation better had on user@hbase, tbh. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I can ask over there too. >>>> >>>> >>>> S >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> (folks interested in background material, the last time we talked >>>>> about this was in HBASE-14025 in 2015 and 2016) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 9:54 AM Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I was under the impression that our CHANGES.md was a list of all >>> changes >>>>>> since the beginning of time but branch-2.2 only has 2.2.0 changes and >>>>>> Guanghao points out that hbase-2.1 releases have CHANGES only since >>> 2.1.0 >>>>>> (I'm RM on branch-2.1). >>>>>> >>>>>> I see Sean say in another thread says >>>>>> >>>>>> "Historically that has meant "all the maintenance releases in this >>>>> minor >>>>>> release". >>>>>> >>>>>> (Andrew thinks we should not bundle CHANGES.md/RELEASENOTES.md but >> just >>>>>> point elsewhere and/or to JIRA). >>>>>> >>>>>> What do folks think? I think these docs should have all changes in >>> them; >>>>>> i.e. that branch-2.1 is doing it wrong? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> S >>>>> >>> >>
