Re: auto-generating changes.txt was: migrating private branches to the new git repo

2014-09-10 Thread Allen Wittenauer
Fixed the subtasks. Hacked on my changes generator a bit more. Source is in my github repo if anyone wants to play with it. Here’s a (merged) 3.x changes.txt file from the current output built off of JIRA. (The unmerged versions are also created, but look pretty much identical.)

Re: auto-generating changes.txt was: migrating private branches to the new git repo

2014-09-05 Thread Karthik Kambatla
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Allen Wittenauer a...@altiscale.com wrote: I hacked on it some more and yes, it’s very easy to detect: * type of jira (improvement, bug, new feature, wish, task, sub-task) * incompatible or not (regardless of type) * reviewed or not (regardless of

Re: auto-generating changes.txt was: migrating private branches to the new git repo

2014-09-05 Thread Allen Wittenauer
On Sep 5, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Allen Wittenauer a...@altiscale.com wrote: We do need to have a talk about 3.x though. Looking over the list, it would appear that a lot of (what became) early 2.x JIRAs were

Re: auto-generating changes.txt was: migrating private branches to the new git repo

2014-09-04 Thread Steve Loughran
is there any way of isolating compatible/incompatible changes, new features? I know that any change is potentially incompatible —but it is still good to highlight the things we know are likely to cause trouble On 4 September 2014 02:51, Allen Wittenauer a...@altiscale.com wrote: Nothing

Re: auto-generating changes.txt was: migrating private branches to the new git repo

2014-09-04 Thread Allen Wittenauer
I hacked on it some more and yes, it’s very easy to detect: * type of jira (improvement, bug, new feature, wish, task, sub-task) * incompatible or not (regardless of type) * reviewed or not (regardless of type) A key question is what to do about tasks, sub-tasks, and wishes. I

auto-generating changes.txt was: migrating private branches to the new git repo

2014-09-03 Thread Allen Wittenauer
Nothing official or clean or whatever, but just to give people an idea of what an auto generated CHANGES.txt file might look like, here are some sample runs of the hacky thing I built, based upon the fixVersion information. It doesn't break it down by improvement, etc. Also, the name on the

Re: auto-generating changes.txt was: migrating private branches to the new git repo

2014-09-03 Thread Karthik Kambatla
2.5.1 - I believe all the commits here are in CHANGES.txt of 2.5.1. Which one is missing? On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Allen Wittenauer a...@altiscale.com wrote: Nothing official or clean or whatever, but just to give people an idea of what an auto generated CHANGES.txt file might look

Re: auto-generating changes.txt was: migrating private branches to the new git repo

2014-09-03 Thread Allen Wittenauer
I don't see HADOOP-10957 in hadoop-common-project/hadoop-cmmon/CHANGES.txt on github in the 2.5.1 branch. On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: 2.5.1 - I believe all the commits here are in CHANGES.txt of 2.5.1. Which one is missing? On Wed, Sep 3, 2014

Re: auto-generating changes.txt was: migrating private branches to the new git repo

2014-09-03 Thread Allen Wittenauer
Oh, it's in hdfs. Sneaky. On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:10 PM, Allen Wittenauer a...@altiscale.com wrote: I don't see HADOOP-10957 in hadoop-common-project/hadoop-cmmon/CHANGES.txt on github in the 2.5.1 branch. On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: 2.5.1 - I