Repository navigation
cut off NEWS.md file #5775
Description
Activity
I agree. If someone wants a history lesson on data.table there are other sources ;) Should we keep a five year NEWS.md?
I think the idea is to truncate the current file as (e.g.) NEWS.1.md and continue on, similar to how r-devel does it.
Reacted by Tyson BarrettMakes sense. So would we keep 1 or 2 years in the NEWS.md while putting the rest into NEWS.1.md? Looks like NEWS.0.md has 8 years of notes so unlikely to be much of a guide that way.
- r-devel does a new NEWS for each major version, but we don't look to be going to 2.0.0+ any time soon. Maybe what makes sense for us is data.table-0.x.y in NEWS.0, then data.table-1.[0-9].y in NEWS.1.0, data.table-1.1[0-9].y in NEWS.1.1, data.table-1.2[0-9].y in NEWS.1.2, etc?…On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:13 AM Tyson Barrett ***@***.***> wrote: Makes sense. So would we keep 1 or 2 years in the NEWS.md while putting the rest into NEWS.1.md? Looks like NEWS.0.md has 8 years of notes so unlikely to be much of a guide that way. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5775 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB2BA5PHRG2KDZASHGTKTUDYH6TCRAVCNFSM6AAAAABABH7CZ6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNBRG43TONRVGI> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: <Rdatatable/data. ***@***.***>
Or just keep all history of 3+ years in NEWS.0.md
Or just keep all history of 3+ years in NEWS.0.md
GitHub UI struggles with huge files, better to keep a few around IMO.
but CTRL+F is easier for single file on the other hand, and so old entries are rarely needed
Even loading huge files can be very slow. tests.Rraw is always causing issues. Current total length of NEWS.0 + NEWS is ~5,000 lines.
old entries are rarely needed
Yes, but "how old is old"? We also don't want to create a lot of churn in git history by e.g. copy-pasting an "old" release NEWS from "current" to "old" file. I'd rather this "relegation" happen rarely and exactly once.
Reacted by Jan GoreckiHonestly with the change of maintainer I think we have a good enough reason to just rename NEWS on v<=1.14.10 as NEWS.1 and continue onward with new NEWS in 1.15.0+.
OTOH, we should make sure we don't need any more patches in 1.14.x series before we commit to the new file, so let's table this for closer to the 1.15.0 release.
Reacted by Jan Gorecki
It is getting too long IMO reaching as back as v1.10.0 (03 Dec 2016).