Re: Release Notes: Markdown to replace QBK

From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-17 20:14:46

On 17/02/2023 19:40, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Vinnie Falco wrote:
>> We need to re-render all of this historical release notes, such as:
>>
>> <https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_81_0.html>
>>
>> to be in the style of the new website. This is being taken care of, but it will
>> affect the release process as follows:
>>
>> * Each author will edit the release notes for their library using markdown
>> instead of Quickbook format, as a pull request against a file
>> here:
>>
>> <https://github.com/boostorg/website/tree/master/feed/history>
>>
>> The syntax will be GitHub flavored markdown, with a few Boost-specific
>> extensions (for example, to link against an issue in a boostorg repo).
>>
>> Does anyone object or have comments about this?
> 
> The pull request workflow isn't very elegant. It would be better if, say,
> every author updates meta/release_notes.md in his repo, and the website
> automatically compiles these (as it currently does for meta/libraries.json).

I and undoubtedly others already keep their release notes in a markdown 
file to please github, but it doesn't live in meta/ nor is it going to.

If meta/libraries.json could override where to find release_notes.md 
(including that it might have a different name), that would work better.

You may find the list of file names which github treats specially at 
https://github.com/joelparkerhenderson/github-special-files-and-paths of 
use when thinking about defaults to use. The obvious is CHANGELOG (which 
I don't like the name of either, what's wrong with release_notes.md?).

Niall