Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:04:21 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: imp@village.org Subject: Re: Upgrading world from 5.0-dp1 to 5.1-RELEASE Message-ID: <402D11A5.6030803@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20040213051135.F34361@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> References: <07b801c3f0c5$50b88780$471b3dd4@dual> <20040211181705.GC69282@xor.obsecurity.org> <087f01c3f14d$3ba3c430$471b3dd4@dual> <0b1401c3f218$ddbdb480$471b3dd4@dual> <20040213051135.F34361@alpha.siliconlandmark.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andre Guibert de Bruet wrote: [ ... ] > I'm of the opinion that UPDATING should be shortened for CURRENT. We > stopped supporting 5.0-RELEASE, why are we including every change since > 4.x? What there should be is an UPGRADING file for users that are running > anything other than what's current (5.2-CURRENT as it currently stands) > and an UPDATING file for users that don't need the two tons of steps and > FYIs. For HEAD, for example, UPDATING would only include the changes since > the last release (Currently 5.2-RELEASE, soon 5.2.1). The UPDATING file contains a prologue and reference to "COMMON ITEMS", followed by a cronological ChangeLog, then followed by the COMMON ITEMS section. Your mileage may vary, but I suspect that starting with COMMON ITEMS, and then making reference to a seperate ChangeLog file would be easier to maintain and would be more readable. A user who wanted to update their system would receive prompt gratification by seeing a section on how to build the kernel and how to build and install world on the first page of UPDATING, rather than ~1300 lines into that file. How much of the ChangeLog to include is a seperate question, but it would be reasonable to rotate it when needed, or perhaps even have a ChangeLog-4 and ChangeLog-5 if it's easier on people to track changes made to -CURRENT versus -STABLE seperately. -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?402D11A5.6030803>