I think excluding tickets that aren't resolved is a good idea, but we'll need to document that there may be commits that reference issues not present in CHANGES because we are CtR. On Feb 19, 2014 7:01 PM, "Josh Elser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> One extra thing: in the CHANGES that I generated, I excluded any tickets > that didn't have a status of "Closed" or "Resolved". > > Not sure what people think about that. > > On 2/19/14, 1:30 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > >> The CHANGES document that is included in an Accumulo release contains >> some set of changes from a previous release which presently contain the >> following information: >> >> 1) Issue Type (Task, Bug, Feature, etc) >> 2) Issue Number (ACCUMULO-1234) >> 3) Issue Subject >> >> There have been various preferences expressed, primarily over IRC, on >> which changes should be contained and how they should be formatted. The >> largest consensus, and what I believe we should do, is as follows: >> >> Entries in a CHANGES file should contain issues, delimited by minor >> version within the major version[1], grouped by issue type. The minor >> version changes sorted be sorted in reverse order (e.g. 1.5.2, 1.5.1, >> then 1.5.0). Changes from the previous major version (e.g. 1.4.x) would >> *not* be included in this CHANGES file. >> >> Opinions? The results of this discussion will be documented on the >> release-making page[2] of the website for future reference. >> >> - Josh >> >> [1] Major and minor version here is referred to as Y and Z of version >> strings of the form: X.Y.Z (not as prescribed by semver, proper) >> [2] http://accumulo.apache.org/releasing.html >> >
