So, in releasing 9.2, I saw the change list, and thought that writing
the release notes was going to be straightforward:
http://hudson.opengeo.org/hudson/view/All/job/geotools-release/60/
And then I noticed bleeding-edge changes that I was certain should not
be on stable:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies
ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au wrote:
So, in releasing 9.2, I saw the change list, and thought that writing
the release notes was going to be straightforward:
http://hudson.opengeo.org/hudson/view/All/job/geotools-release/60/
And then I
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Andrea Aime
andrea.a...@geo-solutions.itwrote:
We always used jira to write the release notes (in other words, if a
commit does not have
an associated ticket, closed in time, it's as if it never occurred).
Never had a look at Hudson's output honestly, and it
On 15/05/13 16:50, Andrea Aime wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Andrea Aime
andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it mailto:andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it wrote:
We always used jira to write the release notes (in other words, if a
commit does not have
an associated ticket, closed in
Yeah, the hudson job isn't really set up for this. The first thing hudson
does us update master to grab the latest scripts, which is where you are
seeing that change log from. And then the next thing it does is checkout
the branch to release from, as specified by the script parameter.
On Wed,
Ah, thanks, Justin. That explains everything.
On 15/05/13 22:56, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
Yeah, the hudson job isn't really set up for this. The first thing
hudson does us update master to grab the latest scripts, which is where
you are seeing that change log from.
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies
