On 15/07/13 10:02, Ryan Ollos wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/12/13, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 12.07.2013 01:48, Ryan Ollos wrote:
Adding the issue to the release notes will require creating a new
release,
If that's the case, then we're doing something wrong. Release notes
should not be part of the release tarball -- that should contain a
/link/ to the release notes, so that any errata can be applied to the
"live" release notes.
Subversion keeps release notes in the project site repository. BH could
have wiki pages with release notes -- only editable by committers, of
course.
-- Brane
Keeping release notes on the wiki sounds good to me.
fwiw +
On a related note, at some point we should do something about our
diverging
installation instructions on the wiki (1) and in the repository (2). I
vote
for using the wiki in this case as well. This was recently brought to
our
attention again by a user (3).
(1) https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/BloodhoundInstall
(2)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/trunk/installer/README.rst
(3) http://markmail.org/message/pa6go7siozxtouje
There's a recent conversation in trac-users ML that seems to be related
to this
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51772?page=last
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/51804
If everyone agrees to keeping the ReleaseNotes on the wiki, the next steps
are:
[...]
I also propose to merge any significant and relevant differences between
README.rst in the repository and the BloodhoundInstall wiki page into the
BloodhoundInstall wiki page, so that we have a single source of
documentation. The file in the repository can point to the wiki page, as we
propose to do for the ReleaseNotes.
I'll wait until later this week before starting on any of these changes.
Please try to raise any issues or alternative ideas you have before then.
While I think that it is a good idea to have the online pages as
canonical, personally I would probably generate the content of README
and RELEASE_NOTES in a release from the online pages. Adding a link to
the appropriate pages on the wiki, specifying those as where the most up
to date information will be would then make sense. Perhaps that is being
over cautious but, then again, I have not noticed any open source
projects where a RELEASE_NOTES or CHANGES file was not part of the
source package. My survey is probably not wide enough though.
Talking of all this, we are obviously going to have to start maintaining
a set of online versions of pages at some point so it might be worth
taking that into account with whichever approach we take.
Cheers,
Gary
