You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The LTS changelog archive page is currently displaying older LTS changelog entries, but the .1 releases are not fully rendered. It appears that the .1 changelog entries only have the # compared to lts_baseline 2.479 - extracted from the RC commit(s) displayed. This means that any entries included in the second section (lts_changes: # compared to lts_predecessor 2.462.3 (selected by personal review)) are not shown on the archive page.
This image shows the archive page for 2.375.1 (note there are only 3 entries for the whole 2.375.1 changelog):
This image shows that there is at least one entry for 2.375.1 not displayed, with many more also not included.
Additional entries for 2.375.1
I'm not entirely sure what part of the recent changelog archive creation might be causing this, but it could be something that was missed during the review of that pull request.
@biru-codeastromer just wanted to flag this to you as well, would you happen to have any insights as to what might cause this sort of rendering?
Thanks for flagging this, @kmartens27 Sir ! I’ll take a look at the changelog archive logic and see if anything from my previous PR could have affected the rendering of .1 releases. It seems like entries from lts_changes might not be displaying correctly—I'll investigate and share any insights I find.
@biru-codeastromer just wanted to flag this to you as well, would you happen to have any insights as to what might cause this sort of rendering?
Thanks for reaching out ! Since my PR primarily introduced the archive page while maintaining the existing logic for displaying changelogs, it shouldn’t directly affect how .1 releases are rendered.
However, I did notice that .1 releases might be missing full lts_changes data in lts.yml, which could be affecting their display. If the changelog system only provides a comparison (# compared to lts_baseline) without a full list of changes, that could explain why some entries are missing.
It might be worth checking if .1 releases in site.changelogs[:lts] have the correct data. If not, we may need to adjust how they are structured or fetched. Let me know how I can assist further!
Service(s)
jenkins.io
Summary
The LTS changelog archive page is currently displaying older LTS changelog entries, but the .1 releases are not fully rendered. It appears that the .1 changelog entries only have the
# compared to lts_baseline 2.479 - extracted from the RC commit(s)
displayed. This means that any entries included in the second section (lts_changes: # compared to lts_predecessor 2.462.3 (selected by personal review)
) are not shown on the archive page.This image shows the archive page for 2.375.1 (note there are only 3 entries for the whole 2.375.1 changelog):
![Image](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/99040580/409212243-9e8125ba-f1b2-45e8-9c43-7a827907625a.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.PFoo8vp5Zkou9mX87PrsTmpWeLX4OcqPVJKu60GI7OM)
This image shows that there is at least one entry for 2.375.1 not displayed, with many more also not included.
![Image](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/99040580/409212449-a55b6a47-b3a8-43c0-8f40-53d49d7357da.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.jyhwyKxvk546vuHY3FFHgC-ufDDNM3KG2NmvQdB4-SA)
Additional entries for 2.375.1
I'm not entirely sure what part of the recent changelog archive creation might be causing this, but it could be something that was missed during the review of that pull request.
Reproduction steps
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: