Re: RFC: Documenting changes in the CHANGES file

2020-07-13 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 6/8/20 10:20 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > >> > > Thanks for all the feedback. I try to work out something more detailed aka > patch that we can discuss then. > Done as r1879822. Happy to get some feedback. Regards Rüdiger

Re: RFC: Documenting changes in the CHANGES file

2020-06-08 Thread Nick Kew
> On 1 Jun 2020, at 13:33, Graham Leggett wrote: > > On 29 May 2020, at 21:30, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > >> changes-fragments/ >>2.4.41/ >>2.4.42/ >>2.4.43/ >>2.4.44/ And a current/ as symlink? > I’m keen for a

Re: RFC: Documenting changes in the CHANGES file

2020-06-08 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 6/2/20 2:17 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > >> Am 02.06.2020 um 14:11 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri : >> >> On 6/1/2020 6:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ruediger Pluem >>> wrote: >>> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge

Re: RFC: Documenting changes in the CHANGES file

2020-06-02 Thread Stefan Eissing
> Am 02.06.2020 um 14:11 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri : > > On 6/1/2020 6:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ruediger Pluem >> wrote: >> >>> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge >>> via svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES.

Re: RFC: Documenting changes in the CHANGES file

2020-06-02 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
On 6/1/2020 6:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ruediger Pluem wrote: >> Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge >> via svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While >> these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on

Re: RFC: Documenting changes in the CHANGES file

2020-06-01 Thread Eric Covener
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via > svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While > these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport > process, both for

Re: RFC: Documenting changes in the CHANGES file

2020-06-01 Thread Graham Leggett
On 29 May 2020, at 21:30, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via > svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While > these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport > process, both for reviewing and

Re: RFC: Documenting changes in the CHANGES file

2020-06-01 Thread Jim Jagielski
Works for me. > On May 29, 2020, at 3:30 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via > svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While > these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport > process,

Re: RFC: Documenting changes in the CHANGES file

2020-06-01 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via > svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While > these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport > process, both for

RFC: Documenting changes in the CHANGES file

2020-05-29 Thread Ruediger Pluem
Reviewing our backport process I noticed that in many cases a clean merge via svn merge fails due to conflicts in CHANGES. While these are easy to solve it puts IMHO unnecessary extra work on the backport process, both for reviewing and for actually doing the backport. How about if we change the