On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > UPDATE > > Apparently, a lot of these entries are bug fixes or refinement, which is fine. > > Because we're doing a duel release, the same entries appear in the > CHANGES and NEWS files for both the 1.0.x and 0.11.x branches. We > could release this as is, but the next release would have to include > both entries — so they would need to be de-duplicated so that > linearly, the 0.11.1 entries contain the bulk of the fixes, and the > 1.0 entry contains the changes between 0.11.1 and 0.1. > > As I think this information will be extremely useful for the many > people trying to decide between a minor upgrade from 0.11 and a major > upgrade to 1.0, I am requesting that we de-duplicate them now, before > release. Someone needs to remove all the entries in NEWS and CHANGES > from the 1.0.x branch that are included in the 0.11.x branch, and then > copy over the 0.11.x entries so that 1.0 follows on from the 0.11.1 > release in terms of the changes documented. > > I am halting the release until this is done. >
and done! > See the chat log from IRC in the interests of transparency here. > > 20:38 <+jchris> nslater: they look ok to me > 20:38 <+nslater> jchris: my concern is that they are almost identical > 20:38 <+nslater> jchris: i thought 0.11.1 was a very minor bug fix > 20:38 <+jchris> the code is almost identical > 20:38 <+nslater> jchris: it should not have 80% of those features > 20:38 <+jchris> nslater: we backported a bunch of stuff to 0.11.x in > prep to cut 1.0 from it > 20:39 <+nslater> that stuff needs to be taken out again > 20:39 <+jchris> then we realized that was silly, and are cutting 1.0 from > trunk > 20:39 <+nslater> right, sure - that's fine > 20:39 <+jchris> then we discussed what needs to be unbackported > 20:39 <+jchris> and we unbackported it > 20:39 <+nslater> but the features need to be backed out. 0.11.1 should > be a bug fix release > 20:39 <+jchris> the enhancements aren't new features tehy are > refinements and bug fixes > 20:39 <+jchris> I'm 100% +1 on the content of the 0.11.x branch right now > 20:39 <+jchris> and I've been over the commit log lots of times > 20:40 <+nslater> there's like two pages of change notes > 20:40 <+jchris> so be it > 20:40 <+jchris> they are mostly Futon things > 20:40 <+nslater> hmm > 20:40 <+jchris> the criteria for unbackporting, was: will it cause > trouble for someone just looking for an upgrade? > 20:41 <+jchris> 0.11.x isn't the most pedantically correct, but I > think it is pragmatically fine > 20:41 <+nslater> okay, can i ask you a favour then, if you think it makes > sense > 20:41 <+nslater> as we're doing a dual release... > 20:41 <+jchris> sure > 20:42 <+nslater> could you go into branches/1.0.x and copy the CHANGES > and NEWS for 0.11.1 to them, and then shrink down the entries for > 1.0.0 > 20:42 <+nslater> if that makes sense. because 1.0 is theoretically > after 0.11.1 - even though we're releasing at the same time > 20:42 <+jchris> you mean, so that it looks like the line of > development was linear? > 20:42 <+nslater> yep > 20:42 <+nslater> that will make things much clearer > 20:42 <+jchris> I don't see why that matters > 20:42 <+nslater> because we're going to have to do it anyway > 20:43 <+nslater> as soon as i release, i update the CHANGES and NEWS > in /trunk so that it is linear > 20:43 <+nslater> we're going to have to do this at some point during > the release. we cant have the next release having duplicate entries in > both 0.11.1 and 1.0.0 > 20:43 <+jchris> I'm happy to do it, but I've got crazy bunches of > stuff to do in the next 15 minutes before we get on the road for a > board meeting > 20:44 <+jchris> and I don't want to delay > 20:44 <+jchris> anyone else up for it? > 20:44 <+nslater> remember that these entries will appear next to each > other in the next release whatever happens. id rather do that now, as > part of the duel release, so people can see what is differnet between > 0.11.1 and 1.0 by just glancing at them > 20:44 <+nslater> davisp: you up for it? > 20:44 <+davisp> up for what? > 20:44 <+nslater> i would do it, but i dont have a confident handle on > it - so i want to defer to someone > 20:45 <+nslater> davisp: the CHANGES and NEWS entries in 0.11.1 and > 1.0.0 have many duplicates. which is fine, because they have duplicate > code. but id like to seperate it out so that 0.11.1 has an entry in > CHANGE and NEWS that is then copied over to the 1.0.0 branch, where we > add a much smaller two entries for what changed between 0.11.1 and > 1.0.0 > 20:46 <+davisp> Oh > 20:46 <+jchris> I think I see what needs to be done > 20:47 <+jchris> diffing the 2 branches should make it clear that the > lines that are in 1.0.x NEWS and CHANGES but not in 0.11.x should be > in the 1.0 section > 20:47 <+davisp> cool > 20:51 <+jchris> nslater: so in the end, CHANGES and NEWS should be > identical across trunk, 1.0.x, and 0.11.x > 20:52 <+nslater> yes > 20:52 <+jchris> except that 0.11.x should be missing the topmost > section (The 1.0 section) > 20:52 <+nslater> yep > 20:52 <+nslater> that's always the way it happens anyway - but i think > its important we do this before the release this time
