Open Stack

On 01/10/2016 11:31 PM, Lana Brindley wrote:
<snip>
> Wow. That'll make the release notes process painful this round ... o.O

Hmmm. In my mind it will make it a lot easier. In the past we end up
getting to the release and sit around and go "hmmm, what did we change
in the last 6 months that people care about?" And forget 90% of it. This
does the work up front. We can then just provide a final edit and
summary of highlights, and we're done.

Having spoke with ops over the years, no one is going to be upset if we
tell them all the changes that might impact them.

> 
> 
>> Would love it to be the case, but I don't think that's correct. Or if it's supposed to be correct, it hasn't been well communicated :)
> 
>> Few random reviews from the DocImpact queue that didn't have relnotes:
> 
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180202/

I can only speak on the Nova change (as that's a team I review for).
You'll see this comment in there -
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180202/31//COMMIT_MSG - a relnote was
expected for the patch series. Whether or not it managed to slip
through, I don't know.

>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/249814/
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/250818/
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/230983/
> 
>> Didn't really look closely into these - would encourage someone with a bit more time to do so, but the fact that these were so trivial to eke out means that "nearly all" is almost certainly a bad assumption.
> 
> 
> My experience would indicate that many, many DocImpact bugs are really not worthy of relnotes.

Can you provide some references? Again, my imagination doesn't really
come up with a lot of Nova changes that would be valid DocImpact but
wouldn't need a reno. I can see bugs filed against Docs explicitly
because there is a mismatch.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net