On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 14:15 -0800, Aaron Patterson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 07:05:34PM +0000, Jon Leighton wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 10:25 -0800, Aaron Patterson wrote: > > > Anyway, these are my thoughts. Input is definitely welcome, but I > > > really think this is something we need to change. > > > > I'm definitely not keen on option 2. > > > > Option 1 I could live with, though I'd like to still keep the Markdown > > format. > > > > Another alternative is to actually just keep the stable release > > changelogs in the stable branch. So changelog entries between 3.1.0 and > > 3.1.1 would only exist in the 3-1-stable branch. Then we wouldn't have > > to fuss about keep master in sync. > > I don't understand this solution. You're proposing no changelog on > master?
Not exactly. Best explained by example. SCENE 1 master: ===================== ## 3.2.0 ## * Bla bla ## 3.1.0 ## * Bla bla ===================== 3-1-stable: ===================== ## 3.1.1 ## * Bla bla ## 3.1.0 ## * Bla bla ===================== SCENE 2 Jon fixes a bug in master. It's a minor thing and not hugely relevant to the 3.2.0 release, so there is no changelog entry. SCENE 3 Jon backports the fix to 3-1-stable. It's more relevant there as it will feature in the forthcoming point release. So the changelog is updated: 3-1-stable: ===================== ## 3.1.2 ## * Jon fixed a bug ## 3.1.1 ## * Bla bla ## 3.1.0 ## * Bla bla ===================== Crucially, the 3.1.2 section does not need to be synchronised with master, just as the 3.2.0 section in master does not need to be synchronised with 3-1-stable. -- http://jonathanleighton.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
