On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:30 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 24 January 2011 13:01, <luc.maison...@free.fr> wrote: >>> Hi Sebb, >>> >>> ----- "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>>> Just had a sudden thought - FastMath is new to 2.2 and 3.0, so does >>>> it >>>> make sense to list all its bug fixes in the changes document? >>> >>> As long as their are Jira issues on them, I think they should be referenced. >> >> But the point is, that these are not changes from the previous >> version, because there was no previous version. >> >> BTW, I've marked all the issues with appliesTo and Fixfor as 2.2&3.0, >> so it's easy to see that the code was fixed before initial release. >> > We have run into this before in [math] and other components. I agree > with Luc that it is better to list the changes in the changelog in > chronological order. >
I vaguely recall editing generated release notes in the past to mention addition of new classes, but drop changes to them before first release. That is another option. We could leave references to all tickets in the changelog, but then edit the release notes to only mention the addition of the classes. Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
