Yes, I remember when we renamed FastFileAppender to RandomAccessFileAppender we put that at the top of the changes list because it was a breaking change and it had more chance to be noticed there.
It would be good to have some mechanism to mark "important" change items like that... On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure. I used to do it in chronological order with newer on top. > Then someone on some project suggested most important on top. I do not > think it matters now because the release notes should highlight what is > important. The detail oriented among us will read the whole list anyway > with our own perspective so there is no best order. So I would go back to > new on top. I also recall that the Action element supports a date so that > would be another help. > > Gary > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Nick Williams > Date:02/08/2014 23:55 (GMT-05:00) > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Clarification: Where do changes go? > > In changes.xml, I see some committers put changes at the top of a > <release> and others put changes at the bottom of a <release>. Which is the > best practice? > > Nick > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > >
