On 6/1/2020 6:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ruediger Pluem <[email protected]> wrote: >> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge >> via svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While >> these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport >> process, both for reviewing and for actually doing the >> backport. How about if we change the way we document changes the following >> way: >> >> 1. We create a changes-fragments directory (name to be determined) at the >> top level. >> 2. For each release we create a subdirectory such that we end up with the >> following structure: >> >> changes-fragments/ >> 2.4.41/ >> 2.4.42/ >> 2.4.43/ >> 2.4.44/ >> >> 3. Each directory contains the changes for each release and each change >> entry is a single file. >> 4. We have a script that builds our current CHANGES file from the content in >> changes-fragments directories with the help of >> a template or at least some sort of header / footer that is static. >> 5. This script can be called either manually and we commit the resulting >> CHANGES file as we like just like the x-forms commits >> for documentation plus this script is called by the release scripts from >> Daniel as part of the preparation of rolling a >> release. > +1 from me, I don't volonteer for the scripts though :) > > Regards; > Yann.
Hi, Yann; I'm open to whatever... and don't mind writing or tweaking scripts once we decide on an approach :-) While we are discussing ideas in this neighborhood, one thing to keep in mind is that during release of security fixes, sometimes there are items added to CHANGES and sometimes CHANGES is modified to add CVE information. There have been minor bumps in the road where these patches don't always apply cleanly. So, if possible, it would be great to consider. There may be nothing to do, though, since that happens waaaaay after backport. -- Daniel Ruggeri
