-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Ditch the Changelog #228
Comments
I always forget updating the file. And I've solved conflicts in it multiple times. Although I certainly understand its benefits, I'm in favor of ditching it to streamline the PR process. As Aldai said, the changelog can be derived from squashed commits. |
I'm against this because I do the releases :D With the changelog we could have releases set up to be nearly automatic, without it not so much. If we can figure out a way to not build on a commit that's just a change to the changelog, would that alleviate some of this? Also, weren't we going to use PRs and the plans directory for RFCs? |
@garrettmoon Yes, being able to skip the build would be good. Not sure if it's feasible and worth it, but can we have a script/bot that updates the changelog when a PR is merged, using the PR's title as the log entry, and skips if the title includes #trivial? |
So I'm going to throw you under the bus here @nguyenhuy, here's the title of a PR vs the wonderful changelog entry you wrote: Title: Changelog: |
So I'm not opposed to getting rid of the changelog if we can reliably get PR titles that are just as good. The obstacles I see to that:
|
haha, it's true that people tend to spend more time on the changelog when they're forced to. I know I'm guilty :P |
Alright time's up. We're keeping the changelog. |
The changelog is currently more trouble than its worth. It's always conflicted, which means another commit and another CI build. And since we squash-and-merge, it's easy enough to translate a commit range into a friendlier set of release notes as needed.
Thoughts @garrettmoon @nguyenhuy @maicki @appleguy ?
Let's resolve this RFC by Friday, May 5th at 10AM pacific.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: