On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, I remember when we renamed FastFileAppender to > RandomAccessFileAppender we put that at the top of the changes list because > it was a breaking change and it had more chance to be noticed there. > > It would be good to have some mechanism to mark "important" change items > like that... > I'd like to think the "mechanism" is the release notes ;) Gary > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I'm not sure. I used to do it in chronological order with newer on top. >> Then someone on some project suggested most important on top. I do not >> think it matters now because the release notes should highlight what is >> important. The detail oriented among us will read the whole list anyway >> with our own perspective so there is no best order. So I would go back to >> new on top. I also recall that the Action element supports a date so that >> would be another help. >> >> Gary >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Nick Williams >> Date:02/08/2014 23:55 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Log4J Developers List >> Subject: Clarification: Where do changes go? >> >> In changes.xml, I see some committers put changes at the top of a >> <release> and others put changes at the bottom of a <release>. Which is the >> best practice? >> >> Nick >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
