I said it in the other email chain, but we have *no* firm guidelines on
what should be present in that CHANGES file. I think this is the
fundamental problem here. The expectations of each individual can't be
managed because we don't have a consensus on what should actually exist
in that file.
I don't see that meriting a -1, personally as the changes for 1.5.1 as
correctly advertised, but the concern is shared.
On 2/19/14, 11:21 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
3) the release notes need to have things broken out by version. Otherwise
you're asking an ops person to go back and look at the 1.5.0 release notes
to determine how 1.5.1 impacts them. For comparison, both Avro and Jackson
(which I consider good exemplars for projects) break out their release
notes to the bugfix[3].
