Fujii Masao
masao****@gmail*****
2013年 10月 21日 (月) 21:07:53 JST
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Beena Emerson <memis****@gmail*****> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Fujii Masao <masao****@gmail*****> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Beena Emerson <memis****@gmail*****> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Fujii Masao <masao****@gmail*****> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> Could you make a patch? >> > >> > >> > Sure :-). >> > >> >> >> >> Where should we locate the release note? >> > >> > >> > What about adding a file release-1.1.html in the html folder? >> >> Seems good! >> >> But the file name might be debatable because we would need to write >> the release note >> even when we release the minor updated version. Now we use the release >> date as the >> identifier of minor updated version, instead of minor version number >> like 1.0.1. So, the >> file name of release note might need to be something like >> release-1.1-201310xx.html. >> Or we need to change our policy of management of minor version. Thought? > > > There is no problem in changing the file name to release-1.1-201310xx.html. > > What would the links in the document look like? > > Release notes: > - Version 1.1, released on 2013-10-xx > - Version 1.1, released on xxxx-xx-xx > > The second one being a future minor release. What about following the rule of PostgreSQL document? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release.html That is, what about the followings? Release notes: - Version 1.1, released on 2014-03-xx - Version 1.1, released on 2013-12-xx - Version 1.1, released on 2013-10-xx - Version 1.0, released on 2014-03-xx - Version 1.0, released on 2013-12-xx - Version 1.0, released on 2013-10-xx The link to release note of newer version comes first. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
Fork