On 4 August 2015 at 02:46, Alexis Lee <alex...@hp.com> wrote:
> Thierry Carrez said on Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 02:57:39PM +0200:
>> 1. we can maintain a Changelog document directly in the source code.
>> Rather than being straightly backported from master, commits with
>> significant changes would be amended to additionally modify that document.
>
> Wouldn't this cause a lot of rebasing as everyone tries to get in at the
> top?
>
>> 2. we come up with a keyword in commit messages ("ReleaseNotes:" ?) and
>> amend only the commit message of significant backports. Automation picks
>> up those and autogenerates a Release Notes document that gets included
>> in generated source code tarballs.
>
> Whichever solution we pick - should we also adopt it on master? Naively
> it sounds useful to be able to generate release notes for master too.
> And this avoids inconsistency between master and stable beyond that
> required to rebase.
>
> Explanations of the many ways I'm wrong are always appreciated.I think you're right on. Something with the same process as ChangeLog generation today - read from git, process, output document - will be much less fragile for merges. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
