On 1 August 2017 at 09:26, Andrey Semashev via Boost
On 08/01/17 09:31, Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost wrote:
El 31/07/2017 a las 19:41, Stefan Seefeld via Boost escribió:
[I think it would be much simpler for everyone involved if each project kept its own release notes (perhaps in the `meta/` subdirectory ?)
+1. Of course that means someone has to volunteer to do the integration script from meta/release_notes.json :-/
I'd rather not use JSON for this as it lacks any means of markup.
It's also quite an error prone format. If there's an error in the metadata I just open a pull request to fix it, but that would too slow for updating release notes, which are often written at the last minute. I can see other problems with a more distributed approach. We'd lose the ability to edit release notes, which we do on occasion, and pull requests also make it easier to track changes as someone has to approve them. It wouldn't be clear which module branch to use, master seems the obvious choice, but it couldn't be used when master is frozen. And changes to the release notes after a release could also be confusing. It would also require everyone to write their own release notes. Sometimes people email me if they don't want to write quickbook markup themselves.
Frankly, I'm quite fine with creating PRs for the website. This approach worked well for me for years.
But this is the key point. It's working better than I expected, and better than a lot of the other things.