From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-04-19 08:32:20
On 4/19/22 08:21, Gavin Lambert via Boost wrote:
> Mere moments ago, quoth I:
>> GitHub does have its own concept of creating releases and release
>> notes that are *associated* with a commit while not actually being
>> part of it -- which means that they can be edited.Â Though one caveat
>> is that it's difficult to edit them ahead of time.
>> Perhaps this could be used -- as part of the release process, GH's API
>> is used to generate a release (linked to the commit that's actually in
>> the release, with some initial default content that's either
>> autogenerated from commit messages or reads some changelog file that's
>> part of the repository).Â The library maintainer can edit this after
>> the fact if they need to.Â The website displays the composite of the
>> release notes from the various library releases (as edited).
> Actually, looks like they've improved things since I last looked -- you
> can write draft release notes ahead of time, and they can also
> auto-generate from commits for you if you want to be lazy (or have a
> starting point to elaborate on).
> So the release process could probably just use an existing draft if
> there is one, or trigger automatic generation if there isn't.Â Either
> way, the maintainer can then edit it after the fact as needed.
> And perhaps the release notes on the main boost repo could be the
> composite (updated by a simple timer, if it's hard to detect an
> individual library's notes being edited), and then the website could
> just link to those directly.Â Quite simple.
I would prefer to not rely on GitHub (or other specific services) in
core processes, such as library releases. I think one should be able to
write release notes locally. And we should be able to switch to a
different hosting relatively easily, if such a switch is decided upon.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk