I also think all issues should be kept in CHANGES.txt, it very useful either to find what changed or to track some obscure bugs months after the release. Sometime when developing plugins for Cassandra you find solutions/resolution there.
Maybe if you want to reduce the list you could provide a link to a Jira filter that lists all the fixed issues for 4.0 in the CHANGES.txt, but an offline list is always more convenient. -- Jacques-Henri Berthemet -----Original Message----- From: Eric Evans [mailto:john.eric.ev...@gmail.com] Sent: mardi 18 juillet 2017 07:09 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: CHANGES.txt On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Stefan Podkowinski <s...@apache.org> wrote: > Has there been any consensus in the past about what goes into > CHANGES.txt and what not? My naive assumption was that the intended > audience for the file are users who want to know about changes between > new releases. Having that in mind, I skipped changes.txt once in a > while for updates that have no relevance except for developers. For > releases, such as 4.0, the list is already substantial and hard to > digest. I'm also wondering how informative entries such as e.g. > "Remove unused method" are for the general user. So my question is, > should we add all resolved tickets to changes.txt, or should we try to > keep the list less verbose in the future? One problem with trying to be selective, is that it invites judgment as to what is or is not worthy for inclusion, and that's bound to be a slippery slope. I also think it's not uncommon for what appears to be a trivial change for one person, to be very important to someone else. I wonder if the length of the list for 4.0 doesn't have as much to do with the delays in getting it released. -- Eric Evans john.eric.ev...@gmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
