On 2/19/14, 12:53 PM, Keith Turner 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.
My point was is that we had nothing in writing that serves as what
should be done. Every release has its holes of things we want to fix
(now or later) -- my point is only that this is something that this is
ambiguous presently due to not being explicitly documented.
We should be taking personal preference into account by way of lazy
consensus. I do not believe everyone is in agreement given that I have
made now 3 variants of a 1.5.1 CHANGES file in cutting RCs. I'll start
another thread because I do not want another release candidate to be
tanked over this.
