C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 12/08/2010 02:00 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> > Quick question to find out what people think.
> >
> > In writing the CHANGES entry for 1.7, it would be useful to be able to
> > compare with previous releases what has already gone into the various
> > patch releases, and what hasn't. That can best happen by comparing
> > revision numbers, but given the revision cut over when we moved to the
> > ASF repo, such a comparison is tedious as best.
> >
> > Does anybody have any opinion on rewriting the revision numbers in
> > CHANGES (assuming it could be appropriately scripted)?
>
> I'm okay with it. There's no much gained in preserving those old revision
> numbers. Besides, if folks want the old numbers, they can be found in older
> versions of the CHANGES file, right? :-)
+1 on converting all revision references throughout the CHANGES file to
the ASF revision numbers, now, in trunk. (+0 on also doing it on the
1.6.x and 1.5.x branches; fine if our branch maintenance practice makes
that happen automatically.)
Rationale: what C-Mike said. And anyone cross-referencing against old
revnums recorded in log msgs and in the issue tracker is probably
already doing this conversion so I don't think it has a negative impact
there. And preserving both numbers such as "(r5000=r845074)" would be
ugly and unnecessary.
- Julian
Received on 2010-12-09 13:13:19 CET