[PATCH 1/2] doc: Add CHANGELOG and UPGRADING docs

[Brian Norris]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:39:02PM +0000, Finucane, Stephen wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:00:22PM +0100, Stephen Finucane wrote:
[...]
> > > +[Unreleased]:
> > https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/compare/v1.0.0...HEAD
> > > +[1.0.0]:
> > https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/compare/v0.9.0...v1.0.0
> > > +[0.9.0]:
> > https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/compare/c561ebe...v0.9.0
> > 
> > What markdown are you using? These URLs don't get matched up to their
> > headers with mine; you need to include an ID on the header label for my
> > copy, from [1]. e.g.:
> 
> They do work on GitHub alright. I duplicated the style used on
> http://keepachangelog.com/. They're using GitHub flavored Markdown,
> which is essentially the same as CommonMark and the Markdown supported
> by sites like Bitbucket, StackOverflow, GitLab and readthedocs.

OK. Unfortunately Markdown is a very loose standard :(

> What
> version did you use? :D

I linked to it in my earlier email. I'm actually using the markdown in
my distro, which claims it is v1.0.1 from daringfireball.net:

    $ markdown --version

    This is Markdown, version 1.0.1.
    Copyright 2004 John Gruber
    http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/

But no matter, as long as you have some sort of standard you're working
against.

> > ## [0.9.0][0.9.0] - 2015-03-22
> > 
> > Also, there are no tags uploaded to github, so the URLs don't work.
> 
> I wanted to see if anyone had any dire complaints about adopting some form of
> versioning before I created tags. I'll probably create them this weeked.

No complaint here. Versioning doesn't impose much on those who just want to
pull the latest from git, and it helps when determining why (for
instance) kernel.org behaves differently than ozlabs.org.

Brian

> Stephen
> 
> > > +
> > 
> > Brian
> > 
> > [1] http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/