Re: CHANGES.txt

Thanks your responses! Seems like all of you prefer to have both trivial and non-trivial updates in CHANGES.txt. I'm going to keep that in mind, but will continue to omit them for documentation edits. On 18.07.2017 23:49, kurt greaves wrote: > I agree that all patches should be added to

RE: CHANGES.txt

I agree that all patches should be added to changes.txt, just to rule out any ambiguities. When people look at Changes.txt it's usually to find something specific, not to browse the list of changes. Anything significant should make it into news.txt, which is more appropriate for users. changes.txt

RE: CHANGES.txt

@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 wan

Re: CHANGES.txt

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Stefan Podkowinski 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