On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:22 AM Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:05 +0100:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 07:36:43AM -0500, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:26 AM Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > > > I am wondering if 1.14 release note should
> > > > summarize what occurred betwen 1.10 and 1.14, or if they should be
> > > > written relative to 1.13 as the current draft implies.
> > > > For users upgrading from LTS to LTS it might make sense to give an
> > > > overview of what changed on one page. And it would also give us more
> > > > material to fill the release notes page with :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I was thinking about this a few days ago. I think that LTS releases are a
> > > different "line" and the release notes should include changes since 1.10.
> > > If the community agrees with that, I'll work on it.
> >
> > In my opinion that would be great. Thanks!
>
> My first preference would have been to keep 1.14 written against 1.13,
> since that's the simplest solution.
>
> In the alternative, I'm concerned about duplication between
> 1.{11,12,13}.html on the one hand and 1.14.html on the other hand.
> I think that could be addressed by using server-side includes, as we
> already do for the navigation bar, so the content would be written once
> and included by both 1.x.html (11 ≤ x ≤ 13) and 1.14.html. Makes sense?
I think it is better to copy the relevant parts and piece them
together in a meaningful way.
Server-side includes sounded good at first, but as I'm looking at the
1.{11,12,13} release notes, the resulting text wouldn't flow well
within the 1.14 release notes. (We'll end up with confusing and
possibly contradictory statements.) Also, as 1.{11,12,13} are all EOL
as of the 1.14 release, it is unlikely that their release notes need
any significant updates anyway.
Nathan
Received on 2020-02-17 16:22:59 CET