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

[Finucane, Stephen]

> 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 :(

It sure is. Hopefully CommonMark should solve that. There's an article here on the whole situation, if you were interested:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/markdown-throwdown-what-happens-when-foss-software-gets-corporate-backing/2/

> > 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.

My thoughts exactly: git for developers and versioned tarballs or similar for deployers. We should probably make the version visible through the Web UI/API at a later date.

Thanks for the review, Brian. Appreciated.

Stephen

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