[Releasing] [Development] Change file process & improvement proposal
edward.welbourne at qt.io
Thu Jan 26 09:51:24 CET 2017
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:21:09AM +0100, Edward Welbourne wrote:
>> However, you seem to be talking about *release* 5.x.0 rather than the
>> *branch* of that name, so I'm not really clear on what you're talking
25 January 2017 12:13, Oswald Buddenhagen:
> i don't know how you arrived at this conclusion, but it isn't relevant
> to my reasoning anyway.
On the other hand, it's a fairly good clue to the possibility that I've
misunderstood what you were talking about.
>>> we could suppress the changelog enforcement for example by standardizing
>>> my "amends <sha1>." lines in the commit messages. if the reference is to
>>> a commit which has not been tagged yet, we know that users won't find it
>> I have never heard of these amends <sha1> lines; where are they
>> explained ?
> git log --author=oswald
So a sort of after-the-fact fixup! tag.
>> In any case, users may find a change interesting even if there is no
>> specific earlier commit that can be pinned down [...]
> unsurprisingly, i think that the correct fallback in case of a missing
> reference is assuming that the commit relates to a tagged commit (if
> it's even a fix at all) and therefore complaining about a missing
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 *can* see how an amends line would be a basis for
not demanding a changelog entry, though.
More information about the Releasing