The proposed changes look awesome! I'm +1 for moving forward with it for pulpcore and pulpcore-plugin.
If there is consensus (looks like we are close), lets go ahead. If anyone has concerns, we also have the option to implement this change for one plugin before we go all in. On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 5:26 AM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > +1 > > > -------- > Regards, > > Ina Panova > Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. > > "Do not go where the path may lead, > go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." > > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:18 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> +1 to improve release notes process >> >> If we decide to use PR numbers and not redmine issues in the release >> notes, then there will be no limitation/requirement to have a redmine issue >> to add something to the release notes. >> >> Tanya >> >> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:46 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 to bmbouter's proposal and not including '[noissue]' items in release >>> notes. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:52 AM Matthias Dellweg <dell...@atix.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I am fine with stating "[noissue] means 'not worth mentioning in >>>> release notes'". >>>> This would require the reviewer to decide to tell the contributor: "We >>>> want that to be part of the release notes. Please open up a ticket." >>>> And that process scales better than handpicking the notes in the end. >>>> >>>> On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:22:36 -0400 >>>> Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > My initial thought is this looks useful to the user and very clean. >>>> > I've also found it to be a burden trying to write good release notes, >>>> > having to dig through commits and try to decide what's important >>>> > enough and what's not, so +1 to trying to improve this process for >>>> > both the releaser and user. >>>> > >>>> > However: >>>> > "towncrier works best in a development system where all merges involve >>>> > closing a ticket." >>>> > We frequently make use of "[noissue]" in our PRs, in part to lower the >>>> > burden on contributors making small fixes. Would we want to move to a >>>> > model where we *must* have an issue? Are we instead assuming those >>>> > items are small enough that the user doesn't need to see it in the >>>> > release notes? >>>> > >>>> > Thoughts? >>>> > >>>> > --Dana >>>> > >>>> > Dana Walker >>>> > >>>> > She / Her / Hers >>>> > >>>> > Software Engineer, Pulp Project >>>> > >>>> > Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> >>>> > >>>> > dawal...@redhat.com >>>> > <https://www.redhat.com> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:49 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > In discussion with some other devs, I've realized that pulpcore and >>>> > > pulpcore-plugin would benefit from better release notes. Here are >>>> > > some of the reasons that have come up: >>>> > > >>>> > > * The release notes are incomplete. One person tries to go through >>>> > > and write release notes just before the release happens, and by >>>> > > that point, the number of changes are too many for this approach to >>>> > > produce complete and robust notes. >>>> > > * They are hard to produce. Producing "all the release notes" is a >>>> > > mentally difficult task. >>>> > > * We try to substitute with Redmine, but this approach limits us >>>> > > (a) it's now difficult and time consuming to see what changed, (b) >>>> > > there is way more detail than you actually want, and they aren't >>>> > > self-contained (can't be browsed off-line). >>>> > > * overall all ^ leads to both users and plugin writers feeling >>>> > > uncertain about what has changed in the last release, week, or even >>>> > > day. >>>> > > >>>> > > So what can we do? Recently I contributed to aiohttp and I found >>>> > > their release note process light and easy. It produces high-quality >>>> > > release notes like these: >>>> > > https://aiohttp.readthedocs.io/en/stable/changes.html >>>> > > >>>> > > You can read about their process here: >>>> > > >>>> https://aiohttp.readthedocs.io/en/stable/contributing.html#changelog-update >>>> > > You can see some examples of these release note files in their repo >>>> > > here: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/tree/master/CHANGES >>>> > > Overall it makes use of the towncrier project >>>> > > https://github.com/hawkowl/towncrier >>>> > > >>>> > > What do you all think about trying something like this for pulpcore >>>> > > and pulpcore-plugin? Please write back on-list with thoughts, >>>> > > ideas, concerns, alternatives, etc. >>>> > > >>>> > > Also, I made us a starter issue to coalesce some more of the >>>> > > practical aspect of adopting a change like this: >>>> > > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4875 >>>> > > >>>> > > All the best, >>>> > > Brian >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>> > > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> > > Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
