On 13/02/2017 11:02, Edward Welbourne wrote:
Note that this speaks of "a changelog file" rather than tags in commits;
I do think this is a better approach, although I do also exhort everyone
to keep your changelog files organised on some *other* model than "make
each addition at the end" - e.g.
Kai Koehne (10 February 2017 16:21) wrote:
> To sum the discussion here and also on gerrit up : There's no
> consensus on making [ChangeLog] entries mandatory, or making the
> [ChangeLog] field enabled by default.
Indeed.
> Anyhow, Ossi had an interesting third suggestion on
>
Hi,
To sum the discussion here and also on gerrit up : There's no consensus on
making [ChangeLog] entries mandatory, or making the [ChangeLog] field enabled
by default.
Anyhow, Ossi had an interesting third suggestion on
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/183244/:
> how about this for an
On 26/01/2017 13:28, Kai Koehne wrote:
So, any strong opinion against enforcing a [ChangeLog] line, with
"[ChangeLog] -" for commits that don't need one?
Yes. Absolutely not. This will just reverse the problem, creating noise
in the commits and lots of useless ChangeLog entries, we might as
It seems that not every reviewer with approval rights is aware (or seems to
care, or just forgets) about stuff like this, though. It's a similar problem
with docs; no doc team member is added to patches and so you end up with lots
of doc issues that they then have to stumble upon after years of
> -Original Message-
> From: Releasing [mailto:releasing-bounces+kai.koehne=qt.io@qt-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Oswald Buddenhagen
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:52 PM
> To: development@qt-project.org; releas...@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Releasing] [Development] Change file
> -Original Message-
> > [...]
> > I therefore suggest to implement Jani's suggestions for the time
> > being. If we find out they're not effective, we can always come back
> > and look into alternative processes.
> >
> > 1. Enable [ChangeLog] tag in commit template
> >
> >
On tirsdag 24. januar 2017 12.00.40 CET Kai Koehne wrote:
> Looks like this discussion got stuck before reaching a conclusion ...
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=qt.io@qt-
> > project.org] On Behalf Of Oswald Buddenhagen
> > Sent:
