You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> on 2013/07/18 16:32:53 UTC
Re: [2/3] git commit: updated refs/heads/master to 6ad181c
I'm not sure what prompted the urgency of this change but the vote was
aborted until we find a way to generate the new changelog correctly and
keep the old one.
Note that I quite like to have the changes available on the doc (though it
could be duplicated to the root too), so not sure now that it's done what
should be done.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:31 PM, <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> Mention docs in README, call out changelog.
>
>
> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb/repo
> Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb/commit/c89302f2
> Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb/tree/c89302f2
> Diff: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb/diff/c89302f2
>
> Branch: refs/heads/master
> Commit: c89302f224297c5d07987e99f3d4cca89ac5043d
> Parents: 89efb74
> Author: Dirkjan Ochtman <dj...@apache.org>
> Authored: Thu Jul 18 14:30:52 2013 +0200
> Committer: Dirkjan Ochtman <dj...@apache.org>
> Committed: Thu Jul 18 14:30:52 2013 +0200
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> README.rst | 12 ++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb/blob/c89302f2/README.rst
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> diff --git a/README.rst b/README.rst
> index 33b854d..9a43aa8 100644
> --- a/README.rst
> +++ b/README.rst
> @@ -20,8 +20,16 @@ Follow the proper instructions to get CouchDB installed
> on your system.
>
> If you're having problems, skip to the next section.
>
> -Troubleshooting
> -----------------
> +Documentation
> +-------------
> +
> +We have documentation:
> +
> + http://docs.couchdb.org/
> +
> +They include a changelog:
> +
> + http://docs.couchdb.org/en/latest/changelog.html
>
> For troubleshooting, see:
>
>
>
Re: [2/3] git commit: updated refs/heads/master to 6ad181c
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am +1 on this change, as previously stated.
>
> There are two topics here:
>
> a. Where our changelog information is kept
>
> b. How we populate our changelog
>
> Dirkjan is taking positive steps towards (a), which is perfectly fine.
> We've been wanting to do this for a long time.
>
> We never resolved (b), and I welcome further discussion on it. But (a) is
> not blocked by it.
>
> Let's try to keep these issues separate. Thanks!
>
>
>
The issue are not separate anymore. The change is already done. Now if all
are fine with it, fine. Like I already said.
- benoit
Re: [2/3] git commit: updated refs/heads/master to 6ad181c
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
I am +1 on this change, as previously stated.
There are two topics here:
a. Where our changelog information is kept
b. How we populate our changelog
Dirkjan is taking positive steps towards (a), which is perfectly fine.
We've been wanting to do this for a long time.
We never resolved (b), and I welcome further discussion on it. But (a) is
not blocked by it.
Let's try to keep these issues separate. Thanks!
On 18 July 2013 19:22, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 18, 2013, at 16:36 , Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> I'm not sure what prompted the urgency of this change but the vote was
> > >> aborted until we find a way to generate the new changelog correctly
> and
> > >> keep the old one.
> > >>
> > >> Note that I quite like to have the changes available on the doc
> (though
> > it
> > >> could be duplicated to the root too), so not sure now that it's done
> > what
> > >> should be done.
> > >
> > > Okay, sorry for rushing that a bit.
> > >
> > > I wasn't clear on the timeline for Robert's email about retracting the
> > > point for 1.4. From reading the messages again, I don't really
> > > understand why we'd want to keep NEWS and CHANGES around. For me as a
> > > RM, keeping three places in sync is just a stupid chore, and I'd
> > > prefer not to deal with it. If people feel strongly about it, I'll
> > > happily re-add NEWS and/or CHANGES with contents populated based on
> > > what we accumulate in the docs.
> >
> > I like the fresh air of not having these :)
> >
> > What are the concrete problems caused by this change for the 1.4.
> > release process other than making sure we convey the desired
> > information with other means.
> >
> > Best
> > Jan
> > --
> >
> > well it has been discussed before and aborted. I already said i was +1 on
> that. But not sure the NEWS and CHANGES files should be removed now. At
> least until we are not clear on how we will fill them later. Which is why
> somehow the thread has been aborted.
>
> - benoit
>
--
NS
Re: [2/3] git commit: updated refs/heads/master to 6ad181c
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
I am +1 on this change, as previously stated.
There are two topics here:
a. Where our changelog information is kept
b. How we populate our changelog
Dirkjan is taking positive steps towards (a), which is perfectly fine.
We've been wanting to do this for a long time.
We never resolved (b), and I welcome further discussion on it. But (a) is
not blocked by it.
Let's try to keep these issues separate. Thanks!
On 18 July 2013 19:22, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 18, 2013, at 16:36 , Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> I'm not sure what prompted the urgency of this change but the vote was
> > >> aborted until we find a way to generate the new changelog correctly
> and
> > >> keep the old one.
> > >>
> > >> Note that I quite like to have the changes available on the doc
> (though
> > it
> > >> could be duplicated to the root too), so not sure now that it's done
> > what
> > >> should be done.
> > >
> > > Okay, sorry for rushing that a bit.
> > >
> > > I wasn't clear on the timeline for Robert's email about retracting the
> > > point for 1.4. From reading the messages again, I don't really
> > > understand why we'd want to keep NEWS and CHANGES around. For me as a
> > > RM, keeping three places in sync is just a stupid chore, and I'd
> > > prefer not to deal with it. If people feel strongly about it, I'll
> > > happily re-add NEWS and/or CHANGES with contents populated based on
> > > what we accumulate in the docs.
> >
> > I like the fresh air of not having these :)
> >
> > What are the concrete problems caused by this change for the 1.4.
> > release process other than making sure we convey the desired
> > information with other means.
> >
> > Best
> > Jan
> > --
> >
> > well it has been discussed before and aborted. I already said i was +1 on
> that. But not sure the NEWS and CHANGES files should be removed now. At
> least until we are not clear on how we will fill them later. Which is why
> somehow the thread has been aborted.
>
> - benoit
>
--
NS
Re: [2/3] git commit: updated refs/heads/master to 6ad181c
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 16:36 , Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I'm not sure what prompted the urgency of this change but the vote was
> >> aborted until we find a way to generate the new changelog correctly and
> >> keep the old one.
> >>
> >> Note that I quite like to have the changes available on the doc (though
> it
> >> could be duplicated to the root too), so not sure now that it's done
> what
> >> should be done.
> >
> > Okay, sorry for rushing that a bit.
> >
> > I wasn't clear on the timeline for Robert's email about retracting the
> > point for 1.4. From reading the messages again, I don't really
> > understand why we'd want to keep NEWS and CHANGES around. For me as a
> > RM, keeping three places in sync is just a stupid chore, and I'd
> > prefer not to deal with it. If people feel strongly about it, I'll
> > happily re-add NEWS and/or CHANGES with contents populated based on
> > what we accumulate in the docs.
>
> I like the fresh air of not having these :)
>
> What are the concrete problems caused by this change for the 1.4.
> release process other than making sure we convey the desired
> information with other means.
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
> well it has been discussed before and aborted. I already said i was +1 on
that. But not sure the NEWS and CHANGES files should be removed now. At
least until we are not clear on how we will fill them later. Which is why
somehow the thread has been aborted.
- benoit
Re: [2/3] git commit: updated refs/heads/master to 6ad181c
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On Jul 18, 2013, at 16:36 , Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what prompted the urgency of this change but the vote was
>> aborted until we find a way to generate the new changelog correctly and
>> keep the old one.
>>
>> Note that I quite like to have the changes available on the doc (though it
>> could be duplicated to the root too), so not sure now that it's done what
>> should be done.
>
> Okay, sorry for rushing that a bit.
>
> I wasn't clear on the timeline for Robert's email about retracting the
> point for 1.4. From reading the messages again, I don't really
> understand why we'd want to keep NEWS and CHANGES around. For me as a
> RM, keeping three places in sync is just a stupid chore, and I'd
> prefer not to deal with it. If people feel strongly about it, I'll
> happily re-add NEWS and/or CHANGES with contents populated based on
> what we accumulate in the docs.
I like the fresh air of not having these :)
What are the concrete problems caused by this change for the 1.4.
release process other than making sure we convey the desired
information with other means.
Best
Jan
--
Re: [2/3] git commit: updated refs/heads/master to 6ad181c
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On Jul 18, 2013, at 16:36 , Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what prompted the urgency of this change but the vote was
>> aborted until we find a way to generate the new changelog correctly and
>> keep the old one.
>>
>> Note that I quite like to have the changes available on the doc (though it
>> could be duplicated to the root too), so not sure now that it's done what
>> should be done.
>
> Okay, sorry for rushing that a bit.
>
> I wasn't clear on the timeline for Robert's email about retracting the
> point for 1.4. From reading the messages again, I don't really
> understand why we'd want to keep NEWS and CHANGES around. For me as a
> RM, keeping three places in sync is just a stupid chore, and I'd
> prefer not to deal with it. If people feel strongly about it, I'll
> happily re-add NEWS and/or CHANGES with contents populated based on
> what we accumulate in the docs.
I like the fresh air of not having these :)
What are the concrete problems caused by this change for the 1.4.
release process other than making sure we convey the desired
information with other means.
Best
Jan
--
Re: [2/3] git commit: updated refs/heads/master to 6ad181c
Posted by Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl>.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what prompted the urgency of this change but the vote was
> aborted until we find a way to generate the new changelog correctly and
> keep the old one.
>
> Note that I quite like to have the changes available on the doc (though it
> could be duplicated to the root too), so not sure now that it's done what
> should be done.
Okay, sorry for rushing that a bit.
I wasn't clear on the timeline for Robert's email about retracting the
point for 1.4. From reading the messages again, I don't really
understand why we'd want to keep NEWS and CHANGES around. For me as a
RM, keeping three places in sync is just a stupid chore, and I'd
prefer not to deal with it. If people feel strongly about it, I'll
happily re-add NEWS and/or CHANGES with contents populated based on
what we accumulate in the docs.
Cheers,
Dirkjan