Thank you Brian for moving this forward. That's a good improvement!
-------- 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 Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:39 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > The towncrier release process [0] is now in place for the repositories > below. Although this proposal discussed adoption for pulpcore specifically, > in collaboration w/ plugin teams on IRC, it was applied more broadly. > > pulpcore, pulpcore-plugin, plugin_template, pulp_file, pulp_rpm, > pulp_ansible, pulp_docker, pulp_python, pulp-certguard > > ## Start adding release notes > Each plugin got doc updates w/ the process on how to add release notes > now. Please start checking these notes in in all ^ repos w/ your commits. > > ## See what it looks like > You can run `towncrier --draft` in the root of any ^ repo and it'll print > out the release notes it would have produced. If you run it without --draft > it will add the actual content to CHANGES.rst and stage those changes. When > you run it without --draft it prompts to remove all the notes from CHANGES > so once they go to the changelog they don't get regnerated. So that means > we only generate just before we release and if you want to know what's > different in source look at the CHANGES directory directly. > > ## File Usages > The CHANGES.rst is intended for the changelog for the most recent release > only. The HISTORY.rst file contains the changelogs of all previous releases > appended. The Sphinx docs bring both of these files together as if they are > on on the documentation site, this is just a common Python file arrangement > I've seen in many successful projects. This means that you'll want to move > contents from the CHANGES.rst file to the HISTORY.rst periodically. > > ## Gotchas > The very first set of notes you produce need a tiny manual touchup to > remove the '-------' at the end. Otherwise Sphinx will fail to build. > Subsequent generated notes will require no updates (so the template is > already correct). After you run towncrier you can run Sphinx locally to be > sure you're generated notes are good to go. > > ## Adding to your plugin > To adopt a similar change in $your_plugin this is probably the best PR to > look at: https://github.com/pulp/pulp_python/pull/245 > > ## Version string duplication > FYI, also with this work all the above repos got version string > duplication. While working on ^, towncrier wanted a __version__ and I > learned that de-duplicating across setup.py and __version__ is kind of > hazardous. So after much back-and-forth the current pattern looks like > this: https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1363/files The issues > motivating this design is that setup.py isn't around on installed systems, > and both towncrier and Read The Docs want to know __version__ but *dont'* > want to install the package. > > I plan to send another proposal this week on adopting 'bumpversion' so we > never get this duplicated aspect wrong. Any questions or concerns on what > has been already done is welcome. > > [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp3_Release_Guide > > Thanks, > Brian > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:00 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> Great with the issue groomed, and much +1 feedback I think we should put >> it in place soon so we can start having an accurate changelog for rc3. I am >> planning to pick this up and so I've taken the issue as assigned. I'll post >> PRs on this thread so everyone can see once they area available (hopefully >> tomorrow or Thurs at latest). >> >> More comments, ideas, or concerns are also welcome. >> >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:53 PM Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:23 PM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> I updated the task[0] slightly and marked it as groomed. >>>> >>>> >>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4875 >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:14 PM Austin Macdonald <aus...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
