- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:03:48 +0000
- To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- CC: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, Dan Burnett <danielcburnett@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc-editors@w3.org" <public-webrtc-editors@w3.org>
On 2017-10-10 01:37, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: >> On Oct 9, 2017, at 5:54 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: >> >> Le 06/10/2017 à 22:58, Bernard Aboba a écrit : >>> To clarify, this would mean that for webrtc-pc (the only document not yet at CR) there would be an editors' draft for each commit to master, right? But that would end once the document is published as a CR? >>> >>> [BA] How would change logs work? >> Good question; I think our options are: >> A. making the last step before a merge (or while doing the merge) that >> editors add a matching line to the changelog >> B. requiring them in pull requests, with a new format convention since >> we would be moving away from specific date release; hopefully that >> convention would avoid conflicts on merge (but I'm not too sure how) >> C. removing changelogs from the document >> D. having them updated at a different pace from editors draft (e.g. >> weekly? biweekly?) >> E. having them autogenerated from the commit logs (which would probably >> require some convention for the commit messages) >> F. having them maintained into a separate document >> >> I would start with D while we figure out which of the others would >> otherwise work better. >> >> Dom > I could live with any of the above but I think B makes the most sense to me. I'm leaning towards a combination of B and E. If we have well formatted PR titles I don't think it's super necessary to maintain a separate change log, but at the same time it shouldn't be to hard to have one automatically generated with a summary at one location that also filters out noise like minor editorial changes. Some thoughts: Can we have github labels or [keywords] in the commit message to filter which changes that should go into the change log? For example, typo fixes would be excluded. Regarding a convention for PR titles. I think it would work if the editors or the person reviewing a PR, also reviews the PR title and checks if it follows the convention and makes sense. That would be done all days of the week and not slow us down at the editor's call. Regardless which way we go, I think this should be done. /Adam
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 05:04:21 UTC