anonym:
> On 19/02/15 18:05, sajolida wrote:
>> sajolida:
>> I'm merely proposing to try a process to collectively improve on the
>> phrasing, being a bit more verbose and user oriented. As RM are pretty
>> busy with many other things, and as many other contributors and testers
>> would bring their own view on the changes made and how to explain them
>> to a board spectrum of users.
>
> Sounds great! Would this include RC's release notes?
I don't want to overload us with tons of extra work. So as a start I'd
like to work on the official notes of major releases only. Since they
are the ones which are really bringing in new things.
> However, on a more technical note, I think it may be hard for you to
> know what to write in it since the changelog generally is prepared quite
> late in the release process, and if you are gonna try to keep track of
> what's going on you'd duplicate the work of the RM to a large extent.
> However, there's a solution!
When I wrote about that the other day I was a bit in a rush, but I think
that the idea is to actually build something *on top of* the work that
you are already doing. For example, for major releases there's already
have a draft from you when the RC is put out, no? So we would work on a
best effort basis to improve on that work and make it more fancy.
My secret plan is to have more people than me work on that. Because if
it's just extra work for me, then it's no fun and probably won't be a
success.
> Me and intrigeri talked briefly that it'd be great to have a folder
> called "changes", either in the Git tree root, or in the "debian"
> directory, just like in Tor's git repo:
>
> https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/changes
>
> So, the idea is that in each bugfix/features/test branch we'd introduce
> some file that contains the exact changelog entry the branch would
> introduce, including the section(s). Such a file would be *required* for
> the branch to be merged.
>
> Not only do I think this would greatly improve the quality of the
> changelog entries (since they're written by the branch author) and
> reduce the RM's stress at image building time (currently I spend 1-2
> hours on the changelog which could be spent on other things, like
> earlier testing), but it'd help you with drafting the release notes in
> the future.
>
> What do you think? Others? I'd be super happy to start with this
> immediately after the 1.3 release if we can get a quick consensus.
intrigeri mentioned that idea and I like it. But I think it's
"orthogonal" (as someone would say) to the thing I'm proposing (as long
as you'd write the draft release notes at RC time).
Now, maybe we need to adapt your draft process a bit here to have it
available in a blueprint for people who don't have access to the Git
(BitingBird for example). Unless you think that this would be too messy.
