On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 12:34:05AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:53:41PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote:
> > This also one of the caveats then upgrading from earlier versions (which are > > not limited to upgrading from 2.2). > > See above. Release notes should be used to illustrate current changes, not > changes occurred in past releases. From what I understand, if we could go back in time (but could not fix anything in the code), we would add notes to release notes for the LyX 2.2.0 release. That is not possible. So the question is do we put them in the release notes for 2.3.0 or leave them absent from any release notes? I wonder if a similar situation has come up before and what we did. It is true that we have a subsection "Caveats when upgrading from earlier versions to 2.3.x", and indeed 2.1.x is an "earlier version". However, the title of the file is "Important Changes in LyX 2.3.0", which in my opinion dominates any implication of a subtitle. One line of logic is: suppose the release notes for 2.2.0 were accurate. Do we really think that 2.1.x users would read both the release notes of 2.2.0 and of 2.3.0 before upgrading? Probably not. So the fact that the release notes for 2.2.0 are inaccurate might not be so relevant. This is all just guessing about user-behavior on my part though. And I must admit that when I personally upgrade software that's important to me, I would read all of the release notes in-between. I think the best solution might be the following: In the RELEASE-NOTES file, we could reference https://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ReleaseNotes for release notes relating to previous versions of LyX. Actually, I need to update that Wiki page. e.g. we could put "If upgrading from a pre-2.2 LyX version, please see https://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ReleaseNotes";, and on that Wiki page we can list both the original release notes as well as any "post 2.2-release addendums", where issues such as what Günter details could be listed. If it is decided that this proposal is too complicated, we could perhaps include a very concise note in the 2.3 release notes along the lines of "if upgrading from pre-2.2, please read <referencec> for considerations related to dashes". Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
