From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Including the release notes in the git-1.5.0 release? Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:05:41 -0500 Message-ID: <20070213180541.GH8670@thunk.org> References: <7vzm7ix895.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 13 19:06:20 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HH22e-0000CB-Uf for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:06:13 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751401AbXBMSFs (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:05:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751411AbXBMSFs (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:05:48 -0500 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:53281 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751412AbXBMSFs (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:05:48 -0500 Received: from root (helo=candygram.thunk.org) by thunker.thunk.org with local-esmtps (tls_cipher TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1HH27Q-0002MA-I0; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:11:08 -0500 Received: from tytso by candygram.thunk.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HH229-00006u-L0; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:05:41 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vzm7ix895.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:44:22AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > As the text assumes familiarity with git 1.3.0 or so, I am not > sure if making it as one of the manpages makes much sense. Yeah, that's a good point. > Also there is a question of what to do when 1.6.0 comes out. > Will its release notes replace 1.5.0 one? If so changes from > which version will it describe? What I've seen some projects do (including some commercial products) is to keep them around with the old file names. So if we have Documentation/RELEASE-NOTES_1.5.0.txt Documentation/RELEASE-NOTES_1.6.0.txt Documentation/RELEASE-NOTES_1.7.0.txt and a symlink from RELEASE-NOTES to Documentation/RELEASE-NOTES-.txt that would make a lot of sense.... > and have pointer to v1.5.0.txt from Documentation/git.txt would > be a sensible and easy thing to do. The only reason why I suggest Documentation/RELEASE-NOTES_1.5.0.txt instead of Documentation/v1.5.0.txt is that it might not be as obvious what "v1.5.0.txt" is for someone just looking at it in the Documntation directory, where as "RELEASE-NOTES_1.5.0.txt leaves no doubt. But keeping the the old release notes around is good both for people who are upgrading from older versions, and it also means that for someone who wants to answer the question, "suppose we want to enable feature ", what which older versions of git clients will be breaking. (I was about to suggest that we just break the older git clients using dumb http protecols on kernel.org, befure I realized that that meant breaking git clients that were released last August. Whoops; it's amazing how much improvements git has seen in the last six months, that it seems a lot longer ago... :-) - Ted