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 <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 2013, at 16:36 , Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@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
