On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > We do have the 1.4 release notes which serve as a defacto standard. No one has raised a good reason to differ from 1.4 in this case. We certainly can not take everyones personal preference into account. However I think the information loss in the release notes is more of an objective concern than something like the formatting of the 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. At first I was not sure about voting -1 over the CHANGES file. When a user goes to download 1.5.1, there is a good chance that his file will be the first thing they look at (and I think its currently very confusing). This is what makes the decision for me. -1 > > > 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]. >> >
