[Releasing] [Development] Change file process & improvement proposal

[Kai Koehne]

Hi,

To sum the discussion here and also on gerrit up : There's no consensus on making [ChangeLog] entries mandatory, or making the [ChangeLog] field enabled by default.

Anyhow, Ossi had an interesting third suggestion on https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/183244/:

> how about this for an idea: we add a new gerrit category "ChangeLog" which needs a +1. it would be auto-set by the bot if a changelog file is touched, otherwise a reviewer needs to set it. easy to implement, reliable (well, as much as the reviewers), and adds no noise to the commit messages.

I understand that this would not be hard to do. This way nobody is forced to write changelog entries, but it requires a conscious click from the reviewer to say 'Yes, this does _not_ use a ChangeLog'.

Any strong opinion against this?

Kai

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schumann, Spencer [mailto:Spencer.Schumann at echostar.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 5:11 PM
> To: Kai Koehne <Kai.Koehne at qt.io>; Oswald Buddenhagen
> <Oswald.Buddenhagen at qt.io>; development at qt-project.org;
> releasing at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Releasing] [Development] Change file process & improvement
> proposal
> 
> 
> > For the sanity bot, either we decide that _every_ change has a
> > [ChangeLog], or we try to make the bot intelligent
> 
> > enough to decide whether a commit needs a change log, or not. Parts of
> > the discussion so far makes me think
> 
> > that this will be an uphill battle though.
> >
> > So, any strong opinion against enforcing a [ChangeLog] line, with
> "[ChangeLog] -" for commits that don't need one?
> 
> I doubt the decision on whether a changelog is needed could be adequately
> automated. Sometimes, even a one character change might need a detailed
> changelog.
> 
> Isn't this something that could and should be enforced via the code review
> process? If reviewers see that the changelog is missing or inadequate, they
> can reject the change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Spencer
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Releasing <releasing-bounces+spencer.schumann=echostar.com at qt-
> project.org> on behalf of Kai Koehne <Kai.Koehne at qt.io>
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 5:28:30 AM
> To: Oswald Buddenhagen; development at qt-project.org; releasing at qt-
> project.org
> Subject: Re: [Releasing] [Development] Change file process & improvement
> proposal
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Releasing [mailto:releasing-bounces+kai.koehne=qt.io at qt-
> > project.org] On Behalf Of Oswald Buddenhagen
> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:52 PM
> > To: development at qt-project.org; releasing at qt-project.org
> > Subject: Re: [Releasing] [Development] Change file process &
> > improvement proposal
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:51:24AM +0100, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> > > I don't know what you're saying, much less why it's supposed to be
> > > the obvious interpretation.  A "tagged commit" is presumably v5.7.0
> > > or similar; why should a commit without an amends line be assumed to
> > > relate to one of these ?
> > >
> > i used "tagged commit" as a shorthand for "a commit which is reachable
> > from a tag", which should be fairly clear from the context. i.e., "git
> > tag --contains <sha1>" returns something.
> 
> Well, I had a hard time deciphering this, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, this all feels like we get side-tracked in details. To reiterate:
> 
> - We do (still) have a problem with our ChangeLog files
>   * The quality of the entries, and the scope, greatly differs (between
> modules)
>   * We do have a problem getting them in place on time for a release
> 
> Jani's proposal is to fix parts of this is to encourage committers and reviewers
> to write [ChangeLog] entries as part of the commit. This could be encouraged
> by
> * Enabling the [ChangeLog] line by default in the commit template
> * Enforcing a [ChangeLog] entry by the Sanity Bot (under conditions xxx)
> 
> For the sanity bot, either we decide that _every_ change has a [ChangeLog],
> or we try to make the bot intelligent enough to decide whether a commit
> needs a change log, or not. Parts of the discussion so far makes me think that
> this will be an uphill battle though.
> 
> So, any strong opinion against enforcing a [ChangeLog] line, with
> "[ChangeLog] -" for commits that don't need one?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Kai
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Releasing mailing list
> > Releasing at qt-project.org
> > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
> _______________________________________________
> Releasing mailing list
> Releasing at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
>