I would reuse the same Jira issue and modify the changes entry to indicate that both were tested.
Ralph > On Jan 27, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I like the multiple entries because it shows that we've (presumably, which I > did with a full build) tested each Jackson version. It shows that we track > releases and that we took the care to test and keep up. That may matter to > some and not so much to others... > > Gary > > On Jan 27, 2017 10:21 AM, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com > <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> wrote: > I was looking over the changelog for 2.8 and noticed some things in the > "Fixed Bugs" section that sound like they'd be more appropriate in the "New > features" section such as: > > * Added Builder classes (e.g., GelfLayout) > * Make GelfLayout independent of Jackson (that is totally a new feature!) > * Added CleanableThreadContextMap (not only is it a new feature, it's a new > log4j-api class!) > * Any new options added to plugins (e.g., disableAnsi in PatternLayout) > * Configurable JVM shutdown hook timeout > * Garbage-free changes (unless you consider garbage objects to be a bug now?) > > Also, this isn't such a big deal, but when we do more than two dependency > version upgrades within a single release, it might be clearer to combine them > into a single ticket (e.g., Jackson makes a bit more releases than we do, so > we usually end up with multiple Jackson upgrade tickets in the changelog > which isn't very helpful to a user). > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>>
