You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> on 2010/12/08 19:00:04 UTC
Updating revision references in CHANGES
Quick question to find out what people think.
In writing the CHANGES entry for 1.7, it would be useful to be able to
compare with previous releases what has already gone into the various
patch releases, and what hasn't. That can best happen by comparing
revision numbers, but given the revision cut over when we moved to the
ASF repo, such a comparison is tedious as best.
Does anybody have any opinion on rewriting the revision numbers in
CHANGES (assuming it could be appropriately scripted)?
-Hyrum
Re: Updating revision references in CHANGES
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@wandisco.com>.
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 12/08/2010 02:00 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> > Quick question to find out what people think.
> >
> > In writing the CHANGES entry for 1.7, it would be useful to be able to
> > compare with previous releases what has already gone into the various
> > patch releases, and what hasn't. That can best happen by comparing
> > revision numbers, but given the revision cut over when we moved to the
> > ASF repo, such a comparison is tedious as best.
> >
> > Does anybody have any opinion on rewriting the revision numbers in
> > CHANGES (assuming it could be appropriately scripted)?
>
> I'm okay with it. There's no much gained in preserving those old revision
> numbers. Besides, if folks want the old numbers, they can be found in older
> versions of the CHANGES file, right? :-)
+1 on converting all revision references throughout the CHANGES file to
the ASF revision numbers, now, in trunk. (+0 on also doing it on the
1.6.x and 1.5.x branches; fine if our branch maintenance practice makes
that happen automatically.)
Rationale: what C-Mike said. And anyone cross-referencing against old
revnums recorded in log msgs and in the issue tracker is probably
already doing this conversion so I don't think it has a negative impact
there. And preserving both numbers such as "(r5000=r845074)" would be
ugly and unnecessary.
- Julian
Re: Updating revision references in CHANGES
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> wrote:
> On 08.12.2010 20:25, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 12/08/2010 02:00 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> Quick question to find out what people think.
>>>
>>> In writing the CHANGES entry for 1.7, it would be useful to be able to
>>> compare with previous releases what has already gone into the various
>>> patch releases, and what hasn't. That can best happen by comparing
>>> revision numbers, but given the revision cut over when we moved to the
>>> ASF repo, such a comparison is tedious as best.
>>>
>>> Does anybody have any opinion on rewriting the revision numbers in
>>> CHANGES (assuming it could be appropriately scripted)?
>> I'm okay with it. There's no much gained in preserving those old revision
>> numbers. Besides, if folks want the old numbers, they can be found in older
>> versions of the CHANGES file, right? :-)
>
> If it's going to be HTML, might as well put in ViewVC links instead of
> just revision numbers.
CHANGES isn't HTML, it's always been flat text. The release notes are HTML.
-Hyrum
Re: Updating revision references in CHANGES
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
On 08.12.2010 20:25, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 12/08/2010 02:00 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> Quick question to find out what people think.
>>
>> In writing the CHANGES entry for 1.7, it would be useful to be able to
>> compare with previous releases what has already gone into the various
>> patch releases, and what hasn't. That can best happen by comparing
>> revision numbers, but given the revision cut over when we moved to the
>> ASF repo, such a comparison is tedious as best.
>>
>> Does anybody have any opinion on rewriting the revision numbers in
>> CHANGES (assuming it could be appropriately scripted)?
> I'm okay with it. There's no much gained in preserving those old revision
> numbers. Besides, if folks want the old numbers, they can be found in older
> versions of the CHANGES file, right? :-)
If it's going to be HTML, might as well put in ViewVC links instead of
just revision numbers.
-- Brane
Re: Updating revision references in CHANGES
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 12/08/2010 02:00 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Quick question to find out what people think.
>
> In writing the CHANGES entry for 1.7, it would be useful to be able to
> compare with previous releases what has already gone into the various
> patch releases, and what hasn't. That can best happen by comparing
> revision numbers, but given the revision cut over when we moved to the
> ASF repo, such a comparison is tedious as best.
>
> Does anybody have any opinion on rewriting the revision numbers in
> CHANGES (assuming it could be appropriately scripted)?
I'm okay with it. There's no much gained in preserving those old revision
numbers. Besides, if folks want the old numbers, they can be found in older
versions of the CHANGES file, right? :-)
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand