svn commit: r350089 - head

[Mark Johnston]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 03:15:41PM +0000, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 07:09:06PM +0000, Mark Johnston wrote:
> > Author: markj
> > Date: Wed Jul 17 19:09:05 2019
> > New Revision: 350089
> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/350089
> > 
> > Log:
> >   Add an initial RELNOTES file.
> >   
> >   The intent is to provide a convenient location to document changes
> >   that are relevant to users of binary FreeBSD distributions, in contrast
> >   with UPDATING, which exists to document caveats for users who build
> >   FreeBSD from source.
> >   
> >   This complements the "Relnotes:" tag in commit messages by providing a
> >   place to document the change in more detail, or in case a "Relnotes:"
> >   tag was accidentally omitted.  In particular, "Relnotes:" should be
> >   used if you do not intend to document the change in RELNOTES for some
> >   reason.
> >   
> >   Changes to the file should not be MFCed.  For now the file will exist
> >   only in head, but may be updated via direct commits to stable branches
> >   depending on how things go.
> >   
> 
> I had to go look at the original thread to remind myself about this, but
> regarding not MFCing changes from head to stable branches, I think there
> may have been some confusion in the discussion.
> 
> By "changes should not be MFCed", at least based on my recollection of
> how the conversation was going, I (at least) meant "not MFCed, but
> committed as a direct commit to stable branches."  In other words,
> merging the RELNOTES change from head to stable/X does not really make
> sense, as the revision numbers will have changed, and would inevitably
> cause merge conflicts.

Right.  I don't think there's any problem with having a per-branch
RELNOTES file so long as they are maintained by direct commits.  When I
added the file I initially just wanted to target HEAD and see if people
would actually add things to the file.

> Now that 12.1 is out, maybe we can expand the idea of this file into
> stable/12 and even stable/11.  One additional idea that came to mind is
> with the formatting for stable branches.
> 
> For example, in head, there is:
> 
>   rNNNNNN:
>           The foo(8) utility was added.
> 
> For stable branches, I would propose the format of:
> 
>  rNNNNNM, MFC of rNNNNNN:
>           The foo(8) utility was added.
> 
> Thoughts?

That seems reasonable to me.