Skip to content

Conversation

hoffie
Copy link
Member

@hoffie hoffie commented Jun 18, 2022

Short description of changes
Previously, all PRs from the relevant git log were added to the ChangeLog. This causes false positives when older PRs are intentionally mentioned again (e.g. for further fixes or documentation updates). At the same time, simply skipping them removes an additional method to avoid forgotten PRs.

Therefore, only add git-mentioned PRs if they don't have a milestone (or a matching one).

CHANGELOG: Internal: Improved Changelog PR listings to avoid mistakenly listing already released PRs.

Context: Fixes an issue?
Fixes: #2657

Does this change need documentation? What needs to be documented and how?
No.

Status of this Pull Request
Ready.

What is missing until this pull request can be merged?
Reviews.

Checklist

  • I've verified that this Pull Request follows the general code principles
  • I tested my code and it does what I want. Yes: -> Ignoring PR #1873, which was mentioned in 'git log r3_8_2..HEAD', but already has milestone 'Release 3.8.1'
  • My code follows the style guide
  • I waited some time after this Pull Request was opened and all GitHub checks completed without errors.
  • I've filled all the content above

… in git log

Previously, all PRs from the relevant git log were added to the
ChangeLog. This causes false positives when older PRs are intentionally
mentioned again (e.g. for further fixes or documentation updates).
At the same time, simply skipping them removes an additional method to
avoid forgotten PRs.

Therefore, only add git-mentioned PRs if they don't have a milestone (or
a matching one).

Fixes: jamulussoftware#2657
@hoffie hoffie added this to the Release 3.9.0 milestone Jun 18, 2022
@hoffie hoffie requested a review from ann0see June 18, 2022 21:39
@@ -44,9 +44,15 @@ find_or_add_missing_entries() {
target_ref="${target_release_tag}"
Copy link
Collaborator

@pljones pljones Jun 18, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be local?

Also, I see here we're fishing in ChangeLog for the version and asserting that uses the \d+\.... format (unlike the tag). All of this stuff needs documenting clearly in https://jamulus.io/contribute/Release-Process

("clearly" explaining why certain things should be done, so that if they need changing, how to change this script (and others like it) can be understood.)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be local?

Yes. Updated (although unrelated to the changes here).

Also, I see here we're fishing in ChangeLog for the version and asserting that uses the \d+\.... format (unlike the tag). All of this stuff needs documenting clearly in https://jamulus.io/contribute/Release-Process

("clearly" explaining why certain things should be done, so that if they need changing, how to change this script (and others like it) can be understood.)

Yes, all of the versioning details would benefit from clear specifications and maybe some overhauls as well.

@hoffie hoffie merged commit d449cbf into jamulussoftware:master Jun 19, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Changelog generation: Avoid false positives
3 participants