On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 12:16 PM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think by git tag would work. Given the URL can be different from the > visible anchor text we could use an exact git sha too, if there is concern > that tags might be changed either accidentally or intentionally in a way > that breaks embedded links in old changelogs. > A link back to the CHANGES file in GitHub of a release tag, along with the tag's sha at the time of link generation, would achieve my request that the point to a rendered version of the changes file where possible. Thank you! On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:57 AM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I am in favor of referring off to the changes files of older releases. > > Would that be by git tag, or to the files in the distribution archives? > > > > I don’t think these changes files are for marketing as such. However, I > > think they are intended to be human-readable (if not for humans, then > > who/what, and why?). Not having a rendered version easily discoverable > is a > > barrier to this goal, and shrinking the file such that it renders in > GitHub > > is a low-cost approach to achieve that goal. > > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 20:04 Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Unless there is an objection to the plan I described below, it will > > happen > > > tomorrow on branch-2 in prep for RC. > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2020, at 4:46 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm glad I checked email before beginning the RC. > > > > > > > > How about this: > > > > > > > > CHANGES.md file that ships in 2.4.0 will contain URLs pointing to > older > > > CHANGES.md for 1.0.0, 2.0.0, 2.1.0, 2.2.0, 2.3.0. > > > > > > > > CHANGES.md file that ships with 2.4.0 will list all issues completed > > for > > > 2.4.0 > > > > > > > > CHANGES.md file that ships with 2.4.1 will list all issues completed > > for > > > 2.4.0 and 2.4.1. > > > > > > > > etc. until 2.5.0, at which point the CHANGES.md file that ships in > > 2.5.0 > > > will contain URLs pointing to older CHANGES.md for 1.0.0, 2.0.0, 2.1.0, > > > 2.2.0, 2.3.0, and 2.4.0, and will list all issues completed for 2.5.0. > > > > > > > > I have felt traditionally the changes file is not where we do release > > > upgrade marketing. > > > > > > > > If the objective is giving user-friendly and self-service answers to > an > > > operator or developer asking, "why should I upgrade? / what's new in > this > > > release?", then I humbly submit we should bring back the practice of > > > writing blog posts for blogs.apache.org/hbase. Speaking of which, that > > > blog is in a somewhat sad state of disrepair with a lot of broken image > > > links. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:02 PM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:34 PM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > So concretely, the conclusion here is that the CHANGES.md file > that > > > ships > > > >> > in 2.4.0 should contain entries for 2.0.0, 2.1.0, 2.2.0, 2.3.0, > and > > > 2.4.0? > > > >> > The CHANGES.md file that ships in 2.4.1 will contain all of the > > > above, plus > > > >> > entries for 2.4.1. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> And the 1.0.0 changes. > > > >> > > > >> Point at a 1.0.0 CHANGES.md file rather than list the 1.0.0 changes. > > > Ditto > > > >> for 2.0.0 changes. Could do pointer for older minor releases too if > > too > > > >> many items to list... 2.1 and maybe 2.2. > > > >> > > > >> S > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Are you sure that's what you want? That seems like more than we > > need. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > >> > Nick > > > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 5:47 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) < > > palomino...@gmail.com> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > +1 on what Sean proposed to include the changes started from the > > > first > > > >> > > major release. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> 于2020年11月10日周二 下午7:37写道： > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I thought we had written up a guide before for what goes in > the > > > changes > > > >> > > > file, but I can't find it at the moment. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > For branch 2.3 I am surprised at 0.99 stuff. I would expect: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > * 2.0.0 > > > >> > > > * 2.1.0 > > > >> > > > * 2.2.0 > > > >> > > > * 2.3.[0-z] > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Because that would be enough that if I was coming from the > prior > > > major > > > >> > > > release I could see everything that might matter getting to > the > > > >> > release. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > If we just include 2.3.z changes then I have to go look at > each > > > of the > > > >> > > > previous minor releases on the release line as well. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > We've talked for some time about possibly including release > > notes > > > / > > > >> > > changes > > > >> > > > for just those things in each individual release on the > website > > > before. > > > >> > > > Would adding something like that be sufficient for the use > > you're > > > >> > > thinking > > > >> > > > of? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020, 15:35 Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Heya, > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > The CHANGES.md file on branch-2.3 weighs in at over 1mb and > is > > > too > > > >> > big > > > >> > > > for > > > >> > > > > Github to render. Its content covers back to 0.99. This > isn't > > > really > > > >> > > > usable > > > >> > > > > by someone who wants to easily see what's new in the latest > > > patch > > > >> > > > release. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I propose we truncate these changes files to what's new for > > the > > > >> > release > > > >> > > > > branch. It probably needs some more work, but the git-jira > > audit > > > >> > script > > > >> > > > [0] > > > >> > > > > is able to generate a report of what's new (never previously > > > >> > released) > > > >> > > > for > > > >> > > > > a target release-line branch. We could use this as the basis > > > for the > > > >> > > > > CHANGES file when starting a new release-line branch. From > > then > > > on, > > > >> > > Yetus > > > >> > > > > takes care of the patch release updates. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > What do you think? > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > Nick > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [0]: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/hbase/tree/master/dev-support/git-jira-release-audit > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from > truth's > > > decrepit hands > > > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
