Ordering of CHANGES

[Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>]

Now that we have two released lines we have a question as to how to
order the CHANGES file.

* We could order it by lines.  1.0.0 ... 1.0.8 -> 1.0.9 -> 1.1.0 ->
1.1.1.  Note that 1.0.9 is released chronologically after 1.1.0 and
before 1.1.1.

* We could order it chronologically 1.0.0 ... 1.0.8 -> 1.1.0 -> 1.0.9 ->
1.1.1.

I think it should be chronologically.  Here's why:

In the case of 1.0.9 we're fixing a performance issue.  If we put them
in line order it will imply that the performance issue we fixed in 1.0.9
is fixed in 1.1.0.  However 1.1.0 still has this issue.

A user would likely still be able to figure this out because there would
be the date of the release in the CHANGES file.  But it would be
subtility that won't be obvious and will lead to confusion.

While the date ordered CHANGES might look a little weird, it's less
likely to cause confusion as to what is fixed when.

Thoughts?

-- 
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org

"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Ordering of CHANGES

["Peter N. Lundblad" <pe...@famlundblad.se>]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Ben Reser wrote:

> I think it should be chronologically.  Here's why:
>
+1

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org