From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Thu Aug 1 19:51:08 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3B0C7A1B; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 19:51:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4601BM15wjz4CNH; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 19:51:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id x71Jp2wY061346; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 12:51:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id x71Jp2EJ061345; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 12:51:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201908011951.x71Jp2EJ061345@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: svn commit: r350505 - in head: contrib/binutils/binutils/doc gnu/usr.bin/binutils/objdump In-Reply-To: To: Ian Lepore Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 12:51:02 -0700 (PDT) CC: John Baldwin , Ed Maste , "Rodney W. Grimes" , src-committers , svn-src-all , svn-src-head Reply-To: rgrimes@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4601BM15wjz4CNH X-Spamd-Bar: + Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has no SPF policy when checking 69.59.192.140) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.39 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[rgrimes@freebsd.org]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.45)[0.448,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; REPLYTO_DOM_NEQ_FROM_DOM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.04)[ip: (0.14), ipnet: 69.59.192.0/19(0.07), asn: 13868(0.05), country: US(-0.05)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 19:51:08 -0000 > On Thu, 2019-08-01 at 10:39 -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 7/31/19 8:13 PM, Ed Maste wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 12:51, Rodney W. Grimes < > > > freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > That would be fine, the important thing is that the > > > > r350505 gets listed in the file, > > > > > > I don't see any reason that r350505 specifically should be in a > > > release note - this is a minor clarification of an existing > > > deprecation notice. It seems having an overall "deprecation > > > notices" > > > section in the release notes would make sense, but they should > > > really > > > persist from version to version. Should we add a top-level > > > DEPRECATION_NOTICES file perhaps? Or tag deprecation notices with > > > some > > > sort of comment in the source so they can be found with a 'grep' > > > during release preparation? > > > > I think it would make sense to have "sections" in RELNOTES that mimic > > the sections we have in the existing release notes (e.g. kernel vs > > userland). That is effectively what GDB does with a top level NEWS > > file. This approach would hopefully make it easier to translate this > > file into the real release notes. It also means that a given "note" > > can evolve over time (e.g. it might start with "XYZ is deprecated" to > > "XYZ is removed" if a deprecation note is added and merged and later > > it > > is removed) rather than only having a running journal ala UPDATING. > > > > On the question of whether we want a dedicated section just for > > deprecation notices, I'm not sure. Probably we can just stick with > > the > > layout of our existing release notes? > > > > I wonder why it is that this relnotes file is some kind of major > attractor for complexity? > > As I understand it, the *entire* intent of this file was "if you forget > to add Relnotes: yes" to a commit, this gives you a way to flag the > commit after the fact, since commit messages are immutable. > > If people realize they forgot Relnotes: yes, and the remedy for that is > that they have to spelunk around in some complex formatted file to find > the "right section" (whatever that means)... well, I think in the real > world: they won't. That was my original intent when "I" first proposed this, imho that is as simple as it needs to be. Markj then later proposed this file here in a review, which I did give some feedback on, and here we are now, having discussion that probably would of better been had during a wider review process. Regards, Rod -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org