Dmitri’s clarification helps: we don’t need an entry for every PR, only changes worth calling out to users. I made the same point in my previous email. I hope this will significantly reduce merge conflicts. We could give it a try, and if conflicts are still there, we can adopt Alex ’s changelog.d proposal. WDYT?
Yufei Yufei On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 7:04 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am fine with whichever approach the team decides. > > However, I personally am not convinced that maintaining a CHANGELOG is > necessary. In my view, the maintenance effort outweighs the actual value it > provides. > Just my two cents. > > Regards, > JB > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 3:45 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > One more "plus" to Alex's proposal: > > > > * Files-based changelog entries can be corrected after the original PR and > > before the release. > > > > I believe we have a few cases where, as a feature was developing, its > > change log entry evolved too (I do not have the example off the top of my > > head, but I'm pretty sure it was real). > > > > Cheers, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 9:33 AM Alex Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Robert's proposal is also interesting: it keeps the discipline but > > > eliminates the need for changelog fragment files. But again there > > > might be tradeoffs to consider: > > > > > > 1) CI cannot enforce that the final commit message will contain a > > > valid changelog entry. > > > > > > 2) the person who merges the PR is not necessarily the PR's author, so > > > we would need to be careful not to override the author's changelog > > > text when merging. > > > > > > 3) If the PR contains many commits, GitHub by default accumulates > > > messages from all commits as the default merge commit message, so we > > > would need to be careful that unrelated text from other commits in the > > > PR won't show up in the changelog by mistake. > > > > > > After considering this, I think I still prefer the changelog.d approach. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Alex > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 2:21 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a good idea. > > > > > > > > I'm not a big fan of the GH release ( > > > > > > > > > https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/releasing-projects-on-github/automatically-generated-release-notes#example-configurations > > > ), > > > > but we can mimic a bit as Robert proposed. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 2:13 PM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think, as an alternative, we could phrase the merged commit > > messages > > > to > > > > > be suitable for CHANGELOG entries. > > > > > Assuming we'd choose to go with conventional-commit-messages rules, a > > > > > relatively simple `git log` with appropriate formatting rules could > > be > > > used > > > > > to generate the CHANGELOG and release-notes content. > > > > > This would also work when commits are cherry-picked onto > > > release-branches, > > > > > and we wouldn't need to look up PR content via GItHub API requests. > > > > > > > > > > Either approach requires discipline from the PR author and/or > > committer > > > > > regarding the merged commit messages and/or PR content. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 2:03 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > I would go with something simpler for now. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. A PR is flagged with changelog label (in addition of the > > > milestone). > > > > > > 2. This PR contains a comment (hand written) starting with > > > "**CHANGELOG** > > > > > > ...". > > > > > > 3. As part of the release workflows, we create the CHANGELOG for a > > > > > release > > > > > > by assembling the **CHANGELOG** comment from PRs in the milestone > > > > > > > > > > > > No need to have AI, curated comments and assembly ad-hoc with this > > > > > > mechanism. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > Happy to make a draft about this :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 1:11 PM Alex Dutra <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I recall, the main reason for maintaining a manually curated > > > > > > > changelog was to offer a clear, thoughtful summary of release > > > changes > > > > > > > – a task that automated tools traditionally struggled with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With recent advancements in AI, we could consider revisiting this > > > > > > > stance and exploring an AI-assisted workflow, as Yufei proposed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, I think we should consider these tradeoffs carefully > > > before > > > > > > > making such a decision: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Missing context: the most essential parts of our changelogs are > > > the > > > > > > > highlights and upgrade notes, e.g. the rolling-upgrade caveat for > > > > > > > credentialVendingMechanism. Since details like this aren't > > > captured in > > > > > > > PR titles or code diffs, an LLM model can only include them if an > > > > > > > author explicitly documented them somewhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Silent omissions: if an LLM accidentally omits a breaking > > change, > > > > > > > the resulting output still appears plausible, making it difficult > > > for > > > > > > > a release manager to identify what's missing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Non-deterministic output: because LLM-generated text isn't > > > directly > > > > > > > reproducible from the repository state, every execution produces > > a > > > > > > > slightly different changelog, which could be an issue for > > official > > > > > > > release votes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given these points, requiring PR authors to submit changelog > > > entries > > > > > > > when relevant remains imho a valuable discipline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moving to a changelog.d directory structure should effectively > > > address > > > > > > > the pain around merge conflicts and reduce contention on > > > CHANGELOG.md. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 8:18 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I originally proposed the CHANGELOG file [1], the idea was > > > to > > > > > help > > > > > > > > with itemizing the changes at release time :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was never meant to include an entry for every small PR, only > > > for > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > worth mentioning in release notes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex's idea of "/changelog.d" sounds interesting. I suppose if > > we > > > > > name > > > > > > > > those files according to to the date, we'll automatically get a > > > > > sorted > > > > > > > > change log for release notes. We could probably also use a > > > pattern or > > > > > > > > textual tags to identify breaking changes, fixes, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: conflict resolution via UI, I think a tool plus some PR > > > > > discipline > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > preferable to a manual process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/qznf8toht1r7ml35lt4p8nwlk9op638v > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 1:35 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To play devil's advocate: do we really need a CHANGELOG file? > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that we need to inform users about breaking changes > > and > > > > > > > user-facing > > > > > > > > > updates. However, we could simply use a "breaking-change" > > > label on > > > > > > > GitHub > > > > > > > > > PRs and automatically populate the Release Notes at release > > > time, > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > than manually maintaining a CHANGELOG. The remainder of a > > > typical > > > > > > > CHANGELOG > > > > > > > > > is essentially just a git log, which most users do not read > > > > > anyway. I > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > successfully used this approach across several ASF projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 7:08 PM Ayush Saxena < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > +1 on trying to find some way around solving CHANGELOG > > > conflicts. > > > > > > > Some > > > > > > > > > > numbers in case they help make the case: over the last 60 > > > days, > > > > > 75 > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > 339 commits on main touched CHANGELOG.md — roughly one in > > > four > > > > > and > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > half. Every one of those is a potential conflict with every > > > > > other, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > none of them is a real logical conflict. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Yufei's two points: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF headers — I don't think fragments need them. rat > > already > > > has > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > exclusion list in build.gradle.kts (the RatTask block > > around > > > line > > > > > > > 55), > > > > > > > > > > and it already excludes a Markdown file on exactly these > > > grounds: > > > > > > > > > > .github/pull_request_template.md. Adding changelog.d/** is > > > one > > > > > > line. > > > > > > > > > > Worth double checking though — but they never ship in a > > > release > > > > > > > > > > artifact, since they're consumed and deleted before the RC > > is > > > > > cut, > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > I think ASF header isn't required. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Multi-PR features — this gets easier rather than harder. > > > Today a > > > > > > > > > > follow-up has to edit shared lines in CHANGELOG.md; with > > > > > fragments > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > edits or deletes one file its own feature owns, so > > follow-ups > > > > > stop > > > > > > > > > > colliding with unrelated work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing worth settling in the PR: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Naming. changelog.d/pr-1235.md has a chicken-and-egg > > > problem: you > > > > > > > > > > don't know the PR number until the PR exists, so the first > > > push > > > > > > never > > > > > > > > > > has the right name. Allowing a short slug > > > > > > > > > > (changelog.d/ranger-implied-grants.md), or keying off the > > > issue > > > > > > > number > > > > > > > > > > where one exists, avoids the extra round trip. towncrier's > > > > > > convention > > > > > > > > > > is <issue>.<type>.md with a +<slug>.md escape hatch for > > > changes > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > no issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert's point changes my view somewhat. If resolving in > > the > > > UI > > > > > > > > > > doesn't dismiss the approval, the per-conflict cost is much > > > lower > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > I assumed. The one cost it does leave is CI: that merge > > > commit > > > > > > > re-runs > > > > > > > > > > the entire pipeline for a one-line docs change.This mostly > > > should > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > solvable, that we don't trigger the entire CI flow when the > > > > > change > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > only in the CHANGELOG. With that plus a line in the PR > > > template > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > resolving in the UI, I think the lighter option is a > > genuine > > > > > > > > > > alternative to the fragment directory rather than just a > > > stopgap. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Ayush > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 at 22:23, Robert Stupp <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CHANGELOG.md entries are usually resolvable via the GH > > UI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did that today and it only required removing three Git > > > > > conflict > > > > > > > > > marker > > > > > > > > > > > lines in total. That ended in a "merge" commit generated > > > by GH > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > didn't > > > > > > > > > > > even require another approval of the PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 6:41 PM Yufei Gu < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for raising this point, it is definitely a pain > > > point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To address it, I think we could create a file named > > > after the > > > > > > PR > > > > > > > > > > number, > > > > > > > > > > > > such as changelog.d/pr-1235.md. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few overhead items and concerns to consider: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. ASF Headers: New files will require ASF headers. > > > While > > > > > this > > > > > > > is a > > > > > > > > > > bit > > > > > > > > > > > > verbose, it should be fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Multi-PR Features: We may need to update the > > > changelog > > > > > > when a > > > > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > > > > > > is split across multiple small PRs. We could allow > > > follow-up > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > modify > > > > > > > > > > > > or even remove the changelog entry created by a > > previous > > > PR. > > > > > It > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > fine as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm open to other ideas as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 9:05 AM Alex Dutra < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Almost every PR that touches user-facing behavior > > adds > > > an > > > > > > entry > > > > > > > > > under > > > > > > > > > > > > > "## [Unreleased]" in CHANGELOG.md. Since all of those > > > PRs > > > > > > edit > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > same few lines, they regularly conflict with each > > > other. > > > > > > > > > Contributors > > > > > > > > > > > > > and reviewers then spend time rebasing and > > > re-resolving a > > > > > > file > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > has no real logical conflicts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose a process change that removes > > this > > > > > > problem: > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead of editing CHANGELOG.md directly, each PR > > adds > > > its > > > > > > own > > > > > > > > > small > > > > > > > > > > > > > file under a new changelog.d/ directory. Because two > > > PRs > > > > > > never > > > > > > > edit > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same file, they can't conflict. At release time, > > a > > > > > script > > > > > > > > > > > > > assembles the fragments into CHANGELOG.md and deletes > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? If you like the idea, I can draft > > a > > > PR > > > > > and > > > > > > > flesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > out the details. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
