I've been marching through the CHANGES.txt file for 0.92 -- and have found some bugs in the jira and in the CHANGES.txt file itself (will submit patch to fix these).
If we are going to depend on the jira to auto generate, it is becomes really important to update fix version on the jira if we are going to use the JIRA to autogenerate it! I've been going through an updated the empty ones I've noticed. This brings up another question -- as I've been going I noticed some are marked 0.90.5 but also have been committed to the 0.92/trunk branches. If a patch committed to multiple branches such as trunk/0.90 branches, my opinion is that it the fix version include both 0.90.5, 0.92. Alternately, we could assume that any 0.90.5+ is in 0.92. Do you all have a preference? Jon. On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 both on more descriptive commit messages and on kiling off CHANGES.txt. > > -Todd > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Nicolas Spiegelberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > To kick a dead horse, coupling the code diff with the CHANGES.txt > > alteration is also a massive PITA because its much harder to run 'git > > cherry-pick' across branches with it. It's far easier to directly port a > > change from 92 to trunk to 89-fb if I don't have that pesky little file > in > > the way. > > > > On 11/1/11 3:34 PM, "Stack" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>We should just auto-generate it. JIRA can do it for us. Its a PITA > >>trying to keep it up and its always going to have holes in it. I > >>suggest we move to auto-generated in TRUNK. > >> > >>St.Ack > > > > > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera > -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // Software Engineer, Cloudera // [email protected]
