C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 12/08/2010 02:00 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote: > > Quick question to find out what people think. > > > > In writing the CHANGES entry for 1.7, it would be useful to be able to > > compare with previous releases what has already gone into the various > > patch releases, and what hasn't. That can best happen by comparing > > revision numbers, but given the revision cut over when we moved to the > > ASF repo, such a comparison is tedious as best. > > > > Does anybody have any opinion on rewriting the revision numbers in > > CHANGES (assuming it could be appropriately scripted)? > > I'm okay with it. There's no much gained in preserving those old revision > numbers. Besides, if folks want the old numbers, they can be found in older > versions of the CHANGES file, right? :-)
+1 on converting all revision references throughout the CHANGES file to the ASF revision numbers, now, in trunk. (+0 on also doing it on the 1.6.x and 1.5.x branches; fine if our branch maintenance practice makes that happen automatically.) Rationale: what C-Mike said. And anyone cross-referencing against old revnums recorded in log msgs and in the issue tracker is probably already doing this conversion so I don't think it has a negative impact there. And preserving both numbers such as "(r5000=r845074)" would be ugly and unnecessary. - Julian
