On 6/2/20 2:17 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>
>> Am 02.06.2020 um 14:11 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri <[email protected]>:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> +1 from me as well. CHANGES is annoying atm, any automation appreciated.
>
Thanks for all the feedback. I try to work out something more detailed aka
patch that we can discuss then.
Regards
Rüdiger
