Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 10:41:15 -0500 From: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> To: Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r350089 - head Message-ID: <20191108154115.GA37198@raichu> In-Reply-To: <20191108151541.GU5599@FreeBSD.org> References: <201907171909.x6HJ96Tu082986@repo.freebsd.org> <20191108151541.GU5599@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 03:15:41PM +0000, Glen Barber wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 07:09:06PM +0000, Mark Johnston wrote: > > Author: markj > > Date: Wed Jul 17 19:09:05 2019 > > New Revision: 350089 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/350089 > > > > Log: > > Add an initial RELNOTES file. > > > > The intent is to provide a convenient location to document changes > > that are relevant to users of binary FreeBSD distributions, in contrast > > with UPDATING, which exists to document caveats for users who build > > FreeBSD from source. > > > > This complements the "Relnotes:" tag in commit messages by providing a > > place to document the change in more detail, or in case a "Relnotes:" > > tag was accidentally omitted. In particular, "Relnotes:" should be > > used if you do not intend to document the change in RELNOTES for some > > reason. > > > > Changes to the file should not be MFCed. For now the file will exist > > only in head, but may be updated via direct commits to stable branches > > depending on how things go. > > > > I had to go look at the original thread to remind myself about this, but > regarding not MFCing changes from head to stable branches, I think there > may have been some confusion in the discussion. > > By "changes should not be MFCed", at least based on my recollection of > how the conversation was going, I (at least) meant "not MFCed, but > committed as a direct commit to stable branches." In other words, > merging the RELNOTES change from head to stable/X does not really make > sense, as the revision numbers will have changed, and would inevitably > cause merge conflicts. Right. I don't think there's any problem with having a per-branch RELNOTES file so long as they are maintained by direct commits. When I added the file I initially just wanted to target HEAD and see if people would actually add things to the file. > Now that 12.1 is out, maybe we can expand the idea of this file into > stable/12 and even stable/11. One additional idea that came to mind is > with the formatting for stable branches. > > For example, in head, there is: > > rNNNNNN: > The foo(8) utility was added. > > For stable branches, I would propose the format of: > > rNNNNNM, MFC of rNNNNNN: > The foo(8) utility was added. > > Thoughts? That seems reasonable to me.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191108154115.GA37198>