On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:18:26PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > > On Jun 1, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Wouter Verhelst <wouter.verhe...@fedict.be> > > wrote: > > > > It might be useful to make that point at the start of the CHANGES file, > > then. Currently, it just says "Changes between X.Y.Zx and X.Y.Zy > > [date]". While that doesn't claim to be complete, the simple word > > "CHANGES" invokes the idea of a changelog, which should be complete -- > > and this file is not. If it's not meant to be, fine -- but then it > > doesn't hurt to say so, and it would alleviate some confusion. > > Sure, would "Major changes" be sufficient? This is essentially > a RELEASE_NOTES file, not a comprehensive change log, which is > subsumed by git.
Exactly. Lots of us have been trained by much experience that a file named CHANGES contains *all* of the changes, while a file named RELEASE_NOTES includes selected changes of particular significance. It's confusing to call a release-notes file CHANGES. Appending a note that, for a full change log, [DO THIS], would probably be well received. -- Mark H. Wood Lead Technology Analyst University Library Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis 755 W. Michigan Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 317-274-0749 www.ulib.iupui.edu
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
