On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:57:55AM +, Jon Leighton wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 20:55 -0800, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> > So if you revert on 3-1-stable, then do you need to add a changelog
> > entry to master? If it was changelog worthy for 3-1-stable, surely it
> > should be changelog worthy
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 20:55 -0800, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> > No, you don't know for sure when you'll backport. But when you do, you
> > don't have to change master as well. So when you backport, you create a
> > new change in 3-1-stable, containing a) the fix and b) a CHANGELOG entry
> > for 3-1-s
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 01:22:29PM +, Jon Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 14:50 -0800, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:30:13PM +, Jon Leighton wrote:
> > > Jon fixes a bug in master. It's a minor thing and not hugely relevant to
> > > the 3.2.0 release, so ther
Oh, let me add that git notes may also be a good idea.
Since changing or adding a note do not change the SHA1 of the commit,
adding them a posteriori or editing them would work well.
Other pros I see are that you get visibility of what's remarkable in
git log itself, and that's scriptable if we w
We have to deal with:
* New entries in master for the next stable release
* New entries in master that are backported to release branches
* New entries in release branches that are not in master
* Reverts in any of those scenarios
Also, in real life sometimes the changelog entry goes in a differe
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 21:14 -0700, Jeremy Kemper wrote:
> 2b) Kill the CHANGELOG and use NEWS-style meaningful release notes
> instead.
>
>
> https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/NEWS
> https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/ruby_1_9_3/NEWS
> https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/ruby_1_8_7/NEWS
Thi
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 14:50 -0800, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:30:13PM +, Jon Leighton wrote:
> > Jon fixes a bug in master. It's a minor thing and not hugely relevant to
> > the 3.2.0 release, so there is no changelog entry.
> >
> > SCENE 3
> >
> > Jon backports the f
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:39:32AM -0800, Josh Susser wrote:
> I suggest using git-notes to mark commits for the CHANGELOG. Metadata FTW!
>
> Not all changes are worth mentioning in the CHANGELOG. But with git-notes,
> you can annotate commits with additional comments after the commit is made.
>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Aaron Patterson
wrote:
> We need to do something about our changelogs. First I will explain the
> problem, then I will propose a couple solutions.
>
> When we make a change, that change should be committed to the master
> branch. Ideally, that change would also
I think Josh's suggestion makes a lot of sense and would seem to solve the
issues your present Aaron.
---
Robert Evans
On Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Josh Susser wrote:
> I suggest using git-notes to mark commits for the CHANGELOG. Metadata FTW!
>
> Not all chan
+1 on considering git-notes. Seems to solve the root problems cleanly.
On Thursday, November 17, 2011, Josh Susser wrote:
> I suggest using git-notes to mark commits for the CHANGELOG. Metadata FTW!
> Not all changes are worth mentioning in the CHANGELOG. But with
git-notes, you can annotate com
Hey guys,
How about this:
Any commit that should end up in the changelog is tagged, using for example
"@changelog" or maybe using git-notes, and then using a separate gem (Which
I can develop if you all agree on this solution), that parses git-log
between two tags and include any commit having th
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:30:13PM +, Jon Leighton wrote:
> Jon fixes a bug in master. It's a minor thing and not hugely relevant to
> the 3.2.0 release, so there is no changelog entry.
>
> SCENE 3
>
> Jon backports the fix to 3-1-stable. It's more relevant there as it will
> feature in the f
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 14:15 -0800, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 07:05:34PM +, Jon Leighton wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 10:25 -0800, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> > > Anyway, these are my thoughts. Input is definitely welcome, but I
> > > really think this is something we ne
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 07:05:34PM +, Jon Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 10:25 -0800, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> > Anyway, these are my thoughts. Input is definitely welcome, but I
> > really think this is something we need to change.
>
> I'm definitely not keen on option 2.
>
> Optio
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 10:25 -0800, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> Anyway, these are my thoughts. Input is definitely welcome, but I
> really think this is something we need to change.
I'm definitely not keen on option 2.
Option 1 I could live with, though I'd like to still keep the Markdown
format.
A
I suggest using git-notes to mark commits for the CHANGELOG. Metadata FTW!
Not all changes are worth mentioning in the CHANGELOG. But with git-notes, you
can annotate commits with additional comments after the commit is made. You can
tag commits that you want in the CHANGELOG and then assemble t
I like the first one, as I think it would be easier to maintain. I don't think
people will appreciate the second option much, as we're cutting a lot of noise
in the CHANGELOG file and it seems easier to follow than `git log`
- Prem
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
We need to do something about our changelogs. First I will explain the
problem, then I will propose a couple solutions.
When we make a change, that change should be committed to the master
branch. Ideally, that change would also include an entry in the
CHANGELOG file. If it's a bugfix, we'll pr
19 matches
Mail list logo
