Hi Alex, Ayush, I agree that the pain is real.
My preference is also with option 1 (changelog.d). Proactive suggestion for file name pattern: changelog.d/<section>/NN-<short-title>.md The file should contain plain MD text suitable for inclusion in a list in the generated changelog. NN is the relative priority. Collisions are allowed and get resolve by <short-title>. Smaller numbers are listed higher in the final doc. Suggestion: use NNN=99 if priority is not critical. On release the included files are simply deleted from `main`. WDYT? Thanks, Dmitri. On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 12:30 PM Ayush Saxena <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for restarting this thread, Alex. > > Regarding Option 2: I tested it, but it isn't working on my end. Even > if it did, it would be difficult to enforce since it requires > educating the team on the new process. > > Option 1 looks like the best approach to me, once we finalize the > naming conventions and the release script. > > -Ayush > > On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 at 21:51, Alex Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm reviving this thread because the pain is real :-) > > > > Can we agree on _something_ that would get rid of constant conflicts? > > > > To summarize the options discussed thus far: > > > > 0. No curated changelog file at all > > - Pros: the file and its conflicts go away. No author effort. > > - Cons: The release notes are mostly a git log that few users read. > > Non-breaking user-facing notes and upgrade caveats aren't captured. > > > > 1. changelog.d/ fragments (one small file per PR, merged into > > CHANGELOG.md at release) > > - Pros: no shared lines, so no conflicts. Entries can be fixed after > > merge. Reviewers can comment line by line. Fragments carry over into > > cherry-picks. > > - Cons: filename scheme to settle (PR numbers aren't known upfront). > > Needs a RAT exclusion. Needs a release script. > > > > 2. Keep CHANGELOG.md and resolve conflicts in the GitHub UI > > - Pros: no process change. Resolving takes a few seconds and needs no > > re-approval. > > - Cons: CI re-runs on every merge commit. The friction stays. > > > > 3. Generate the release notes with AI at release time > > - Pros: little author effort. > > - Cons: it can silently omit breaking changes. Output isn't > > reproducible for release votes. AI can't surface caveats that nobody > > wrote down. > > > > 4. Changelog text in commit messages > > - Pros: no extra files. Works with cherry-picks. > > - Cons: CI can't enforce it. The merger can overwrite the author's > > text. GitHub's default message pulls in unrelated text. Editing it > > after a long review is heavy. > > > > 5. PR label plus a CHANGELOG comment, assembled at release > > - Pros: no files in the repo. > > - Cons: entries live in PR comments, so they're hard to review or fix. > > It depends on a release workflow that scrapes GitHub. > > > > What do you all prefer? > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 10:53 PM vignesh a <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > +1 on Yufei's approach first [5733]. > > > > > > Tightening the guidance so CHANGELOG only covers changes worth > > > calling out in release notes should cut a lot of the contention. > > > That matches how Dimitri described the original intent. > > > > > > If we still collide often after that, I'm fine moving to Alex's > > > changelog.d idea as the next step. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Vignesh > > > > > > [5733] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5733 > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 at 00:35, Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Yufei, > > > > > > > > Thanks for raising PR [5733]. I think it makes sense. Let's see how > it > > > > works out. > > > > > > > > [5733] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5733 > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 2:31 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dmitri’s clarification helps: we don’t need an entry for every PR, > > > > > only changes worth calling out to users. I made the same point in > my > > > > > previous email. I hope this will significantly reduce merge > conflicts. > > > > > We could give it a try, and if conflicts are still there, we can > adopt > > > > > Alex ’s changelog.d proposal. WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 7:04 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am fine with whichever approach the team decides. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I personally am not convinced that maintaining a > CHANGELOG is > > > > > > necessary. In my view, the maintenance effort outweighs the > actual > > > > value > > > > > it > > > > > > provides. > > > > > > Just my two cents. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 3:45 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One more "plus" to Alex's proposal: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Files-based changelog entries can be corrected after the > original > > > > PR > > > > > and > > > > > > > before the release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we have a few cases where, as a feature was > developing, its > > > > > > > change log entry evolved too (I do not have the example off > the top > > > > of > > > > > my > > > > > > > head, but I'm pretty sure it was real). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 9:33 AM Alex Dutra <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert's proposal is also interesting: it keeps the > discipline but > > > > > > > > eliminates the need for changelog fragment files. But again > there > > > > > > > > might be tradeoffs to consider: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) CI cannot enforce that the final commit message will > contain a > > > > > > > > valid changelog entry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) the person who merges the PR is not necessarily the PR's > author, > > > > > so > > > > > > > > we would need to be careful not to override the author's > changelog > > > > > > > > text when merging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If the PR contains many commits, GitHub by default > accumulates > > > > > > > > messages from all commits as the default merge commit > message, so > > > > we > > > > > > > > would need to be careful that unrelated text from other > commits in > > > > > the > > > > > > > > PR won't show up in the changelog by mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After considering this, I think I still prefer the > changelog.d > > > > > approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 2:21 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a good idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not a big fan of the GH release ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/releasing-projects-on-github/automatically-generated-release-notes#example-configurations > > > > > > > > ), > > > > > > > > > but we can mimic a bit as Robert proposed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 2:13 PM Robert Stupp < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, as an alternative, we could phrase the merged > commit > > > > > > > messages > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > be suitable for CHANGELOG entries. > > > > > > > > > > Assuming we'd choose to go with > conventional-commit-messages > > > > > rules, a > > > > > > > > > > relatively simple `git log` with appropriate formatting > rules > > > > > could > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > to generate the CHANGELOG and release-notes content. > > > > > > > > > > This would also work when commits are cherry-picked onto > > > > > > > > release-branches, > > > > > > > > > > and we wouldn't need to look up PR content via GItHub API > > > > > requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Either approach requires discipline from the PR author > and/or > > > > > > > committer > > > > > > > > > > regarding the merged commit messages and/or PR content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 2:03 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would go with something simpler for now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. A PR is flagged with changelog label (in addition > of the > > > > > > > > milestone). > > > > > > > > > > > 2. This PR contains a comment (hand written) starting > with > > > > > > > > "**CHANGELOG** > > > > > > > > > > > ...". > > > > > > > > > > > 3. As part of the release workflows, we create the > CHANGELOG > > > > > for a > > > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > by assembling the **CHANGELOG** comment from PRs in the > > > > > milestone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No need to have AI, curated comments and assembly > ad-hoc with > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Happy to make a draft about this :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 1:11 PM Alex Dutra < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I recall, the main reason for maintaining a > manually > > > > > curated > > > > > > > > > > > > changelog was to offer a clear, thoughtful summary of > > > > release > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > > > – a task that automated tools traditionally > struggled with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With recent advancements in AI, we could consider > > > > revisiting > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > stance and exploring an AI-assisted workflow, as > Yufei > > > > > proposed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, I think we should consider these tradeoffs > > > > > carefully > > > > > > > > before > > > > > > > > > > > > making such a decision: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Missing context: the most essential parts of our > > > > > changelogs are > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > highlights and upgrade notes, e.g. the > rolling-upgrade > > > > > caveat for > > > > > > > > > > > > credentialVendingMechanism. Since details like this > aren't > > > > > > > > captured in > > > > > > > > > > > > PR titles or code diffs, an LLM model can only > include them > > > > > if an > > > > > > > > > > > > author explicitly documented them somewhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Silent omissions: if an LLM accidentally omits a > breaking > > > > > > > change, > > > > > > > > > > > > the resulting output still appears plausible, making > it > > > > > difficult > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > a release manager to identify what's missing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Non-deterministic output: because LLM-generated > text > > > > isn't > > > > > > > > directly > > > > > > > > > > > > reproducible from the repository state, every > execution > > > > > produces > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > slightly different changelog, which could be an > issue for > > > > > > > official > > > > > > > > > > > > release votes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given these points, requiring PR authors to submit > > > > changelog > > > > > > > > entries > > > > > > > > > > > > when relevant remains imho a valuable discipline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moving to a changelog.d directory structure should > > > > > effectively > > > > > > > > address > > > > > > > > > > > > the pain around merge conflicts and reduce > contention on > > > > > > > > CHANGELOG.md. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 8:18 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I originally proposed the CHANGELOG file [1], > the > > > > > idea was > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > help > > > > > > > > > > > > > with itemizing the changes at release time :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was never meant to include an entry for every > small > > > > PR, > > > > > only > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > > > > > > worth mentioning in release notes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex's idea of "/changelog.d" sounds interesting. I > > > > > suppose if > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > > > > > those files according to to the date, we'll > automatically > > > > > get a > > > > > > > > > > sorted > > > > > > > > > > > > > change log for release notes. We could probably > also use > > > > a > > > > > > > > pattern or > > > > > > > > > > > > > textual tags to identify breaking changes, fixes, > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: conflict resolution via UI, I think a tool > plus some > > > > PR > > > > > > > > > > discipline > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > preferable to a manual process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/qznf8toht1r7ml35lt4p8nwlk9op638v > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 1:35 PM Jean-Baptiste > Onofré < > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To play devil's advocate: do we really need a > CHANGELOG > > > > > file? > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that we need to inform users about > breaking > > > > > changes > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > user-facing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates. However, we could simply use a > > > > "breaking-change" > > > > > > > > label on > > > > > > > > > > > > GitHub > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PRs and automatically populate the Release Notes > at > > > > > release > > > > > > > > time, > > > > > > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than manually maintaining a CHANGELOG. The > remainder > > > > of a > > > > > > > > typical > > > > > > > > > > > > CHANGELOG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is essentially just a git log, which most users > do not > > > > > read > > > > > > > > > > anyway. I > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successfully used this approach across several > ASF > > > > > projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 7:08 PM Ayush Saxena < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on trying to find some way around solving > > > > CHANGELOG > > > > > > > > conflicts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in case they help make the case: over > the > > > > last > > > > > 60 > > > > > > > > days, > > > > > > > > > > 75 > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 339 commits on main touched CHANGELOG.md — > roughly > > > > one > > > > > in > > > > > > > > four > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > half. Every one of those is a potential > conflict with > > > > > every > > > > > > > > > > other, > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > none of them is a real logical conflict. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Yufei's two points: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF headers — I don't think fragments need > them. rat > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exclusion list in build.gradle.kts (the > RatTask block > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > line > > > > > > > > > > > > 55), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and it already excludes a Markdown file on > exactly > > > > > these > > > > > > > > grounds: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .github/pull_request_template.md. Adding > > > > > changelog.d/** is > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > line. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Worth double checking though — but they never > ship > > > > in a > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > artifact, since they're consumed and deleted > before > > > > > the RC > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > cut, > > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think ASF header isn't required. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Multi-PR features — this gets easier rather > than > > > > > harder. > > > > > > > > Today a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > follow-up has to edit shared lines in > CHANGELOG.md; > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > fragments > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edits or deletes one file its own feature > owns, so > > > > > > > follow-ups > > > > > > > > > > stop > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > colliding with unrelated work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing worth settling in the PR: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Naming. changelog.d/pr-1235.md has a > chicken-and-egg > > > > > > > > problem: you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't know the PR number until the PR exists, > so the > > > > > first > > > > > > > > push > > > > > > > > > > > never > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has the right name. Allowing a short slug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (changelog.d/ranger-implied-grants.md), or > keying off > > > > > the > > > > > > > > issue > > > > > > > > > > > > number > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where one exists, avoids the extra round trip. > > > > > towncrier's > > > > > > > > > > > convention > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is <issue>.<type>.md with a +<slug>.md escape > hatch > > > > for > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert's point changes my view somewhat. If > resolving > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > UI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't dismiss the approval, the per-conflict > cost > > > > is > > > > > much > > > > > > > > lower > > > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I assumed. The one cost it does leave is CI: > that > > > > merge > > > > > > > > commit > > > > > > > > > > > > re-runs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the entire pipeline for a one-line docs > change.This > > > > > mostly > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > solvable, that we don't trigger the entire CI > flow > > > > > when the > > > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only in the CHANGELOG. With that plus a line > in the > > > > PR > > > > > > > > template > > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resolving in the UI, I think the lighter > option is a > > > > > > > genuine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alternative to the fragment directory rather > than > > > > just > > > > > a > > > > > > > > stopgap. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Ayush > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 at 22:23, Robert Stupp < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CHANGELOG.md entries are usually resolvable > via the > > > > > GH > > > > > > > UI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did that today and it only required > removing > > > > three > > > > > Git > > > > > > > > > > conflict > > > > > > > > > > > > > > marker > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lines in total. That ended in a "merge" > commit > > > > > generated > > > > > > > > by GH > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even require another approval of the PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 6:41 PM Yufei Gu < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for raising this point, it is > definitely a > > > > > pain > > > > > > > > point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To address it, I think we could create a > file > > > > named > > > > > > > > after the > > > > > > > > > > > PR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > number, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such as changelog.d/pr-1235.md. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few overhead items and concerns to > consider: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. ASF Headers: New files will require ASF > > > > > headers. > > > > > > > > While > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > is a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > verbose, it should be fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Multi-PR Features: We may need to > update the > > > > > > > > changelog > > > > > > > > > > > when a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is split across multiple small PRs. We > could > > > > allow > > > > > > > > follow-up > > > > > > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modify > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even remove the changelog entry created > by a > > > > > > > previous > > > > > > > > PR. > > > > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fine as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm open to other ideas as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 9:05 AM Alex Dutra < > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Almost every PR that touches user-facing > > > > behavior > > > > > > > adds > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > entry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "## [Unreleased]" in CHANGELOG.md. Since > all of > > > > > those > > > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > > > > edit > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same few lines, they regularly conflict > with > > > > each > > > > > > > > other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Contributors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and reviewers then spend time rebasing > and > > > > > > > > re-resolving a > > > > > > > > > > > file > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has no real logical conflicts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose a process change that > > > > removes > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > problem: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead of editing CHANGELOG.md > directly, each > > > > PR > > > > > > > adds > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > small > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > file under a new changelog.d/ directory. > > > > Because > > > > > two > > > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > > > > never > > > > > > > > > > > > edit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same file, they can't conflict. At > release > > > > > time, > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > script > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assembles the fragments into > CHANGELOG.md and > > > > > deletes > > > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? If you like the idea, > I can > > > > > draft > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > PR > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > flesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out the details. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
