Hi, To sum the discussion here and also on gerrit up : There's no consensus on making [ChangeLog] entries mandatory, or making the [ChangeLog] field enabled by default.
Anyhow, Ossi had an interesting third suggestion on https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/183244/: > how about this for an idea: we add a new gerrit category "ChangeLog" which > needs a +1. it would be auto-set by the bot if a changelog file is touched, > otherwise a reviewer needs to set it. easy to implement, reliable (well, as > much as the reviewers), and adds no noise to the commit messages. I understand that this would not be hard to do. This way nobody is forced to write changelog entries, but it requires a conscious click from the reviewer to say 'Yes, this does _not_ use a ChangeLog'. Any strong opinion against this? Kai > -----Original Message----- > From: Schumann, Spencer [mailto:spencer.schum...@echostar.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 5:11 PM > To: Kai Koehne <kai.koe...@qt.io>; Oswald Buddenhagen > <oswald.buddenha...@qt.io>; development@qt-project.org; > releas...@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Releasing] [Development] Change file process & improvement > proposal > > > > For the sanity bot, either we decide that _every_ change has a > > [ChangeLog], or we try to make the bot intelligent > > > enough to decide whether a commit needs a change log, or not. Parts of > > the discussion so far makes me think > > > that this will be an uphill battle though. > > > > So, any strong opinion against enforcing a [ChangeLog] line, with > "[ChangeLog] -" for commits that don't need one? > > I doubt the decision on whether a changelog is needed could be adequately > automated. Sometimes, even a one character change might need a detailed > changelog. > > Isn't this something that could and should be enforced via the code review > process? If reviewers see that the changelog is missing or inadequate, they > can reject the change. > > > > > > - Spencer > > > ________________________________ > > From: Releasing <releasing-bounces+spencer.schumann=echostar.com@qt- > project.org> on behalf of Kai Koehne <kai.koe...@qt.io> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 5:28:30 AM > To: Oswald Buddenhagen; development@qt-project.org; releasing@qt- > project.org > Subject: Re: [Releasing] [Development] Change file process & improvement > proposal > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Releasing [mailto:releasing-bounces+kai.koehne=qt.io@qt- > > project.org] On Behalf Of Oswald Buddenhagen > > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:52 PM > > To: development@qt-project.org; releas...@qt-project.org > > Subject: Re: [Releasing] [Development] Change file process & > > improvement proposal > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:51:24AM +0100, Edward Welbourne wrote: > > > I don't know what you're saying, much less why it's supposed to be > > > the obvious interpretation. A "tagged commit" is presumably v5.7.0 > > > or similar; why should a commit without an amends line be assumed to > > > relate to one of these ? > > > > > i used "tagged commit" as a shorthand for "a commit which is reachable > > from a tag", which should be fairly clear from the context. i.e., "git > > tag --contains <sha1>" returns something. > > Well, I had a hard time deciphering this, too. > > > > Anyway, this all feels like we get side-tracked in details. To reiterate: > > - We do (still) have a problem with our ChangeLog files > * The quality of the entries, and the scope, greatly differs (between > modules) > * We do have a problem getting them in place on time for a release > > Jani's proposal is to fix parts of this is to encourage committers and > reviewers > to write [ChangeLog] entries as part of the commit. This could be encouraged > by > * Enabling the [ChangeLog] line by default in the commit template > * Enforcing a [ChangeLog] entry by the Sanity Bot (under conditions xxx) > > For the sanity bot, either we decide that _every_ change has a [ChangeLog], > or we try to make the bot intelligent enough to decide whether a commit > needs a change log, or not. Parts of the discussion so far makes me think that > this will be an uphill battle though. > > So, any strong opinion against enforcing a [ChangeLog] line, with > "[ChangeLog] -" for commits that don't need one? > > Regards > > Kai > > > _______________________________________________ > > Releasing mailing list > > releas...@qt-project.org > > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing > _______________________________________________ > Releasing mailing list > releas...@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing > _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development