Mike had an objection to the inclusion of 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes in the CHANGES file for 1.6.0. That objection was based on his understanding of a previous thread. I'm not sure there was ever consensus on what to do, and I had a different understanding of the results of that thread. I'd like to resolve this with extreme haste.
The current 1.6.0-RC CHANGES have included 1.4.0, and 1.5.0, and 1.6.0, with the expectation that 1.6.1 would contain all those, plus 1.6.1, and 1.6.2 would contain all those, plus 1.6.2 changes, etc. This fits with how we are currently labeling things in JIRA. However, we could just as easily drop 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes from the file, and it still matches what we're doing in JIRA. This is what happened with 1.5.0.
So, which do we do? a or b:
a) include 1.4.0, 1.5.0 b) do not include 1.4.0, 1.5.0
Additionally, should we (c or d):
c) include sub-tasks d) do not include sub-tasks
I'll update the CHANGES for RC5 according to the majority view from this discussion at the time I prep RC5 (probably tomorrow morning). I lean towards (b) and (d), but don't feel very strongly. I just don't want to see a released blocked on this file.
Alright, it looks like the general view is (b) omit 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes, and (c) include sub-tasks.
Sean also commented that he'd prefer sub-tasks to be listed last. I'd also prefer this, if we are going to include them. However, in the interests of copy/paste convenience, which allows me to see diffs more easily, I'm going to favor the order that is generated by JIRA, if that's okay.
Apache Lucene, Apache Solr and all other Apache Software Foundation projects and their respective logos are trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation.
Elasticsearch, Kibana, Logstash, and Beats are trademarks of Elasticsearch BV, registered in the U.S. and in other countries. This site and Sematext Group is in no way affiliated with Elasticsearch BV.
Service operated by Sematext