Like this? https://gist.github.com/apurtell/f5959f36b0b13d5e92f35b22549020cc
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:04 AM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >> > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
