On 02-06-17 03:18, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > >> On Jun 1, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Wouter Verhelst <wouter.verhelst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> It might be useful to make that point at the start of the CHANGES file, >> then. Currently, it just says "Changes between X.Y.Zx and X.Y.Zy >> [date]". While that doesn't claim to be complete, the simple word >> "CHANGES" invokes the idea of a changelog, which should be complete -- >> and this file is not. If it's not meant to be, fine -- but then it >> doesn't hurt to say so, and it would alleviate some confusion. > > Sure, would "Major changes" be sufficient? This is essentially > a RELEASE_NOTES file, not a comprehensive change log, which is > subsumed by git. Something like that, yes. Alternatively, a note saying "and a number of changes too small to be noted here, please see the git log for details" at the end of every changelog would work too (and give a hint to users where to go for more details). -- Wouter Verhelst -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
