garden-of-delete edited a comment on issue #12566: URL: https://github.com/apache/superset/issues/12566#issuecomment-764997761
Forgive me if I am interjecting a novice question here. Since breaking changes are critical to the proposed semantic versioning scheme (major/minor version distinction), does it make sense to add some additional structure / formalization around how breaking changes are identified and documented? As I understand it, the current process relies on individual contributors adding information to UPDATING.md when merging code that results in a breaking change, and that information lives nowhere else outside the mind of the contributor and the results of existing regression testing. Edit: I'm not sure what the best way to address this is. I envision a requirement for PRs to include clear identification of breaking changes (which they currently sort of do), and some kind of automation to ensure those changes are documented for the next major release. Maybe PR labels (like "risk:breaking-change"), could do the job with a script to run before each major release that scoops all PRs with breaking changes for automated addition to UPDATING.md. More information could be appended to that document by hand, but at least we wouldn't run as large a risk of breaking changes slipping through undocumented. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
