Sanitize Release Notes structure and process #82811

Closed
opened 2020-11-18 12:19:27 +01:00 by Bastien Montagne · 15 comments

*This page is mostly about the wiki version of the release notes, https:*wiki.blender.org/wiki/Reference/Release_Notes .//

Problems:

  • We do not have an official, accepted release notes structure (their categories/sub-pages)
  • Several people have different ideas about what should go where, ending up in whole sections moving around several times during the pre-release weeks (for 2.90, overrides part was moved at least three times e.g.).
  • Some projects (overrides, depsgraph, ...) do not seem to find a proper place, and end up in weird (to say the least) categories.

Open Questions:

  • Are wiki release notes main audience supposed to be end (non-technical) users, or are they a technical reference for the PR department to generate the https://www.blender.org/download/releases/ pages?
    If for end users, what is the point of having them re-worked again for www.blender.org? And how can we make PR and technical aspects cooperate in the wiki? If it is a technical reference, why is PR even touching those at all? And why can't we keep a structure matching the logical organization of code and modules, instead of based on features as perceived by end users?
*This page is mostly about the wiki version of the release notes, https:*wiki.blender.org/wiki/Reference/Release_Notes .// Problems: * We do not have an official, accepted release notes structure (their categories/sub-pages) * Several people have different ideas about what should go where, ending up in whole sections moving around several times during the pre-release weeks (*for 2.90, overrides part was moved at least three times e.g.*). * Some projects (overrides, depsgraph, ...) do not seem to find a proper place, and end up in weird (to say the least) categories. Open Questions: * Are wiki release notes main audience supposed to be end (non-technical) users, or are they a technical reference for the PR department to generate the https://www.blender.org/download/releases/ pages? **If for end users, what is the point of having them re-worked again for www.blender.org? And how can we make PR and technical aspects cooperate in the wiki?** If it is a technical reference, why is PR even touching those at all? And why can't we keep a structure matching the logical organization of code and modules, instead of based on features as perceived by end users?
Author
Owner

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'
Author
Owner

Added subscriber: @mont29

Added subscriber: @mont29
Author
Owner

Personally, I would simply keep wiki release notes structure in sync with our modules one. That way it is easy to decide what goes where, and modules can also be made responsible of keeping their notes up to date (just like they are supposed to manage their module page), ideally reducing the overhead of management/release team, and keeping things clear for technical users and stake-holders that follow closely Blender development.

But more importantly, I do not want to see projects navigating in release notes again the way it happened for overrides in 2.90. For me, this is frustrating (because it makes it harder to keep track on it), incomprehensible and illogical.

Categories need to be generally stable across releases (besides of course pruning those that would be empty). Category of each project needs to be defined once and for all, preferably when they are started for new projects, and everybody should stick to it.

Personally, I would simply keep wiki release notes structure in sync with our modules one. That way it is easy to decide what goes where, and modules can also be made responsible of keeping their notes up to date (just like they are supposed to manage their module page), ideally reducing the overhead of management/release team, and keeping things clear for technical users and stake-holders that follow closely Blender development. But more importantly, I do not want to see projects navigating in release notes again the way it happened for overrides in 2.90. For me, this is frustrating (because it makes it harder to keep track on it), incomprehensible and illogical. Categories need to be generally stable across releases (besides of course pruning those that would be empty). Category of each project needs to be defined once and for all, preferably when they are started for new projects, and everybody should stick to it.
Member

Added subscriber: @EAW

Added subscriber: @EAW
Member

Added subscriber: @Blendify

Added subscriber: @Blendify
Member

The way I think it should work is the wiki release notes are for technical reference only, end users should not be browsing the wiki in general.
Thus, the wiki release notes should be organized by module and module owners/developers should be responsible for making sure a user affecting change is added to the release notes.
The developers should add a basic description that can help technical users link back to a specific commit for later reference.
The wiki notes should also be helpful enough to provide accurate details needed to make release notes on blender.org by the PR team.
Blender.org should not link back to wiki, if the blender.org release notes should link to the manual instead if more information is needed.

The way I think it should work is the wiki release notes are for technical reference only, end users should not be browsing the wiki in general. Thus, the wiki release notes should be organized by module and module owners/developers should be responsible for making sure a user affecting change is added to the release notes. The developers should add a basic description that can help technical users link back to a specific commit for later reference. The wiki notes should also be helpful enough to provide accurate details needed to make release notes on blender.org by the PR team. Blender.org should not link back to wiki, if the blender.org release notes should link to the manual instead if more information is needed.
Member

Added subscriber: @dfelinto

Added subscriber: @dfelinto

Added subscriber: @dr.sybren

Added subscriber: @dr.sybren

In #82811#1056903, @mont29 wrote:
Personally, I would simply keep wiki release notes structure in sync with our modules one. That way it is easy to decide what goes where

I think this is a good basis for the organisation. There will always be corner cases like "the button (user interface) for overriding (library overrides) drivers (animation)", but I guess such things would typically go into the spot where users would typically expect them (I'd say "Animation & Rigging" in this particular example).

and modules can also be made responsible of keeping their notes up to date (just like they are supposed to manage their module page)

I feel that this should be a shared responsibility. The final responsibility is for the module, sure. On a change-by-change basis, though, IMO the developer committing the change is responsible for also immediately putting it into the release notes.

> In #82811#1056903, @mont29 wrote: > Personally, I would simply keep wiki release notes structure in sync with our modules one. That way it is easy to decide what goes where I think this is a good basis for the organisation. There will always be corner cases like "the button (user interface) for overriding (library overrides) drivers (animation)", but I guess such things would typically go into the spot where users would typically expect them (I'd say "Animation & Rigging" in this particular example). > and modules can also be made responsible of keeping their notes up to date (just like they are supposed to manage their module page) I feel that this should be a shared responsibility. The final responsibility is for the module, sure. On a change-by-change basis, though, IMO the developer committing the change is responsible for also immediately putting it into the release notes.
Author
Owner

In #82811#1064901, @dr.sybren wrote:

In #82811#1056903, @mont29 wrote:
and modules can also be made responsible of keeping their notes up to date (just like they are supposed to manage their module page)

I feel that this should be a shared responsibility. The final responsibility is for the module, sure. On a change-by-change basis, though, IMO the developer committing the change is responsible for also immediately putting it into the release notes.

Yes definitively, I meant responsibility of the module more like 'module team is responsible to keep an eye on their note page and ensure it is up-to-date (including kicking devs that would commit thinks without the appropriate note)'.

> In #82811#1064901, @dr.sybren wrote: >> In #82811#1056903, @mont29 wrote: >> and modules can also be made responsible of keeping their notes up to date (just like they are supposed to manage their module page) > > I feel that this should be a shared responsibility. The final responsibility is for the module, sure. On a change-by-change basis, though, IMO the developer committing the change is responsible for also immediately putting it into the release notes. Yes definitively, I meant responsibility of the module more like 'module team is responsible to keep an eye on their note page and ensure it is up-to-date (including kicking devs that would commit thinks without the appropriate note)'.

Added subscriber: @Grady

Added subscriber: @Grady

Are wiki release notes main audience supposed to be end (non-technical) users, or are they a technical reference for the PR department to generate the https://www.blender.org/download/releases/ pages?

If I can drop in my 2cents here to offer the perspective of a user who actually does look at the wiki, I personally regularly read the wiki release notes, even on upcoming new versions of Blender before release to see how development is going, and for an understanding of new features and changes to Blender before they arrive, so that by the time they do arrive, I am already familiar with them and know how to integrate them into my workflow. I find the more detailed and bullet point notes of the wiki version of the release notes, along with links to commits/tasks on the relevant changes, very informative in ways that allow me to better utilise Blender to it's fullest potential.

That said, I would also probably acknowledge I am by no means an average Blender user, and by comparison I know some fellow Blender users who don't even notice when new versions of Blender are released until I tell them. So I guess it varies considerably depending on how much an end user wants to be involved or informed about the development of Blender. Perhaps someone like me would be classified an 'end (technical) user'?

> Are wiki release notes main audience supposed to be end (non-technical) users, or are they a technical reference for the PR department to generate the https://www.blender.org/download/releases/ pages? If I can drop in my 2cents here to offer the perspective of a user who actually does look at the wiki, I personally regularly read the wiki release notes, even on upcoming new versions of Blender before release to see how development is going, and for an understanding of new features and changes to Blender before they arrive, so that by the time they do arrive, I am already familiar with them and know how to integrate them into my workflow. I find the more detailed and bullet point notes of the wiki version of the release notes, along with links to commits/tasks on the relevant changes, very informative in ways that allow me to better utilise Blender to it's fullest potential. **That said,** I would also probably acknowledge I am by no means an average Blender user, and by comparison I know some fellow Blender users who don't even notice when new versions of Blender are released until I tell them. So I guess it varies considerably depending on how much an end user wants to be involved or informed about the development of Blender. Perhaps someone like me would be classified an 'end (technical) user'?
Member

Added subscriber: @Imaginer

Added subscriber: @Imaginer
Member

Organization by module sounds okay to me, but I don't agree that end users should not be browsing the wiki in general. Currently, the wiki release notes are the only place for information about smaller features/bug fixes and add-on updates, all of which the blender.org release notes link to.

And speaking of add-ons and the blender.org release notes, it would actually be very nice if add-ons that come bundled with blender got there own dedicated section here.
As it is, add-ons are only mentioned as a footnote or not at all.

Organization by module sounds okay to me, but I don't agree that end users should not be browsing the wiki in general. Currently, the wiki release notes are the only place for information about smaller features/bug fixes and add-on updates, all of which the blender.org release notes link to. And speaking of add-ons and the blender.org release notes, it would actually be very nice if add-ons that come bundled with blender got there own dedicated section here. As it is, add-ons are only mentioned as a footnote or not at all.
Thomas Dinges added this to the 2.91 milestone 2023-02-08 16:19:12 +01:00

Release notes have been organized by module for quite a while now.

Release notes have been organized by module for quite a while now.
Blender Bot added
Status
Archived
and removed
Status
Confirmed
labels 2023-03-23 18:20:21 +01:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
7 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#82811
No description provided.