On Sep 8, 2010, at 8:50 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > So, it looks like we should follow Lucene's lead on how to handle our > CHANGES.txt > across 3.x and trunk. If the same change is being committed to both, > put it in the 3.x > section of trunk's CHANGES.
And the 3.x section of trunk's CHANGES is where in trunk? I suppose we need to copy it over. > When something is backported to 3.x, move it from > the 4.0 to the 3.1 section in trunk's CHANGES. That will handle most > of the issues > I think. > > Of course... when a 3.x-only change is made, should that be added to the > 3.1 section of trunk's CHANGES? Instead of maintaining two places to edit, why don't we just have trunk track only those things that are exclusive to trunk? Anything that is committed to both goes in the X.Y version (i.e. 3.x). Then, when it is released, we can just copy it over to trunk. That has the downside of trunk users not seeing the joint changes, however. We could just SVN external in the previous version CHANGES, too, or simply put a link to it in the trunk CHANGES, as in see http://xxxxx for 3.x changes. Thus, trunk contains only the trunk changes and then a pointer to the 3.x line. Also, FWIW, I see very little reason to tote around a massive CHANGES history. Do users really need to see the Lucene 1.1 CHANGES when they download Lucene 4.0? I mean it's fun to see where we came from, but that file is at 2500+ lines at this point. I'd propose we keep the last release of the previous major release, plus all minor releases since. Hence, 3.x would contain 2.9 plus 3.x. -Grant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
