JIRA has a configurable "Release Notes" report. https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12316520&version=12333017
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > I think i like that idea. It would also force JIRA titles to be written > better though so as to fit the flow of CHANGELOG....sometimes those are > kinda slack. > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Matt Frantz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Correct. We would make manual additions to the CHANGELOG only to augment > > the JIRA report in some way, either to explain non-JIRA activities or to > > draw attention to particular JIRA issues that are significant (and we > would > > cite the JIRA ticket from the CHANGELOG for those). The definition of > > "significant" is discretionary. > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > Are you suggesting that on release we rectify the JIRA report with the > > > CHANGELOG? In that way, if something was done by way of JIRA we > wouldn't > > > have to enter a CHANGELOG entry manually, because on release we'd pick > it > > > up via the JIRA report? > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Matt Frantz < > [email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Perhaps in the release process we could generate a JIRA report of > > issues > > > > marked as fixed in the specific version, and reserve the CHANGELOG > for > > > > significant changes and things that were not tracked through JIRA. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Stephen Mallette < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We have typically treated CHANGELOG rather unscientifically. Make > a > > > > change > > > > > of significance, then update the changelog for the appropriate > > version. > > > > I > > > > > bat around the idea of including the issue ids all the time but > > haven't > > > > > wanted to start the trend of doing that. Perhaps we do that and > make > > > it > > > > > optional?? Not sure how others feel on that matter. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Matt Frantz < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I just merged my fix for TINKERPOP3-782 to both tp30 and > master. I > > > > > didn't > > > > > > touch CHANGELOG. Do we do that for every bug fix? I don't see > > > > > references > > > > > > to JIRA artifacts in the CHANGELOG. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Stephen Mallette < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matt, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a PR currently targeted at tp30 (because it is a > low-risk > > > bug > > > > > > fix). > > > > > > > > I know that we don't necessarily code review everything that > > goes > > > > in, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > since I'm relatively new, I wouldn't mind someone taking a > peek > > > at > > > > > it, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > the verify that tp30 is the best target. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right - no official code review. We pretty much tend to handle > > it > > > as > > > > > you > > > > > > > just did - on a case-by-case basis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (I don't have permissions on the GitHub mirror for > > > > > > incubating-tinkerpop. > > > > > > > > Should I?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think you should - I don't have permissions either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, after it is merged to tp30, is the process going to be > > > that I > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > also need to merge tp30 into master? Or do we plan to merge > > only > > > > > > > > occasionally? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been the only person committing things to tp30 of any > > > substance > > > > so > > > > > > > I've been doing it periodically, but generally speaking, I'd > say > > > that > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > best if the person who commits to tp30 merges to master (unless > > > it's > > > > > > > something pretty trivial). In that way the person who > committed > > to > > > > > tp30 > > > > > > is > > > > > > > responsible for ensuring proper integration with master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Matt Frantz < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a PR currently targeted at tp30 (because it is a > > low-risk > > > > bug > > > > > > > fix). > > > > > > > > I know that we don't necessarily code review everything that > > goes > > > > in, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > since I'm relatively new, I wouldn't mind someone taking a > peek > > > at > > > > > it, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > the verify that tp30 is the best target. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (I don't have permissions on the GitHub mirror for > > > > > > incubating-tinkerpop. > > > > > > > > Should I?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, after it is merged to tp30, is the process going to be > > > that I > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > also need to merge tp30 into master? Or do we plan to merge > > only > > > > > > > > occasionally? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Stephen Mallette < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks JB - i'm familiar with semver and I think the idea > is > > to > > > > > > follow > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > in principle, in that we will save API breaking change for > > the > > > > > > "minor" > > > > > > > > > version. imo, we should stick to the three digit system > for > > > now > > > > > > but I > > > > > > > > > guess it's worth considering what a "breaking change" is in > > our > > > > > > > context. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TinkerPop is "big" - it has both public and internal APIs. > > if > > > i > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > package name of an internal API in a patch release, I > > wouldn't > > > > > expect > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > to break anyone and thus I'm not sure I'd consider that a > > > > breaking > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > (though it's always interesting to see how folks find > their > > > way > > > > > into > > > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > our internal classes) . To me the "breaking changes" are > > ones > > > > that > > > > > > > occur > > > > > > > > > in the public classes (i.e. the ones people are likely to > > use) > > > > > like: > > > > > > > > > gremlin driver classes, structure API for vendors, step > > classes > > > > and > > > > > > > > > GraphTraversal/GraphTraversalSource, etc. Changing those > > > classes > > > > in > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > way, would break the greatest percentage of users. I'm not > > > sure > > > > > how > > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > > > feel, but I tend to think of "breaking change" in that more > > > fuzzy > > > > > > > > fashion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Jean-Baptiste Musso < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Related - have you considered using semantic versioning > [1] > > > > > > > > > > (major.minor.patch)? Roughly, semver states that breaking > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > should bump major, new backward-compatible features > should > > > bump > > > > > > minor > > > > > > > > > > while bug fixes should bump patch. It also supports > > > pre-release > > > > > > > > > > version (-alpha, -incubating or -whatever suffixes). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to avoid having the first digit (major) being > > bumped > > > > too > > > > > > > > > > often (TP3 shall remain TP3!), a variation could be: > > > > > > > > > > marketing.major.minor.patch (downside to that is 4 digits > > > > > > versioning > > > > > > > > > > instead of 3). For example, adding a new Gremlin step > would > > > > bump > > > > > > > minor > > > > > > > > > > while changing a step signature in a > backward-incompatible > > > > manner > > > > > > > > > > would bump major. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > semver is very popular in the JavaScript/Node.js world > and > > > used > > > > > > > > > > extensively with npm (node package manager). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just some thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Baptiste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://semver.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stephen Mallette < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's worthwhile for us to do something we've > not > > > > really > > > > > > > done > > > > > > > > > > before > > > > > > > > > > > with any of the TinkerPop projects: use branches. We > > > > typically > > > > > > tend > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > branches for major refactoring that we might throw out, > > but > > > > not > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > release management. As we look past release 3.0.0, I > > think > > > we > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > have the capability to do more frequent minor releases > > > (e.g. > > > > > > 3.0.1, > > > > > > > > > > 3.0.2, > > > > > > > > > > > etc) while still being able to do work for a future > 3.1.x > > > > line > > > > > of > > > > > > > > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can do this without too much change if we > > > > introduce > > > > > a > > > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > > > > branch system. Release branch rules would be simple - > we > > > > > create > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > branch from master called tp31 for the 3.1.x line of > > code. > > > > Any > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > > that are "breaking", introduce significant risk, a > > "major" > > > > > > feature, > > > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > would be committed there. All other changes, bug > fixes, > > > > > > > non-breaking > > > > > > > > > > > refactoring of major APIs, "minor" features, etc. would > > > > simply > > > > > > > commit > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > master. the master branch effectively becomes the > 3.0.x > > > line > > > > > of > > > > > > > > code. > > > > > > > > > > > Under this approach the merge process is pretty simple > in > > > > that > > > > > we > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > merge forward (i.e. master merges to to tp31). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the day comes that we're ready to release 3.1.0, > we > > > > merge > > > > > > tp31 > > > > > > > > > back > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > master and create tp32 and use the same model where the > > > 3.1.x > > > > > > line > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > master and the 3.2.x line is tp32. Of course, under > this > > > > model > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > really supporting just the previous minor version, > which > > > for > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > > > seems acceptable to me. That's more than what we've > ever > > > > > really > > > > > > > done > > > > > > > > > > well, > > > > > > > > > > > so that feels like a good starting point in my book. > > After > > > > we > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > 3.1.0 we can revisit and decide if a more complex > > branching > > > > > > > strategy > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
