Adopt new changelog standard

[peternied]

Description

Added new human readable changelog for 2.0.0-rc1 and including
unreleased commits.

The release process we've been using for release-notes has not been
producing useful results, there has been discussion in
opensearch-project/OpenSearch#1868 to come up
with a practice. This is an attempt to start following the suggestion
and come up with feedback for the OpenSearch organization.

Signed-off-by: Peter Nied petern@amazon.com

Issues Resolved

• Related to [PROPOSAL] Author CHANGELOG in each PR instead of collecting them in the last days before a release OpenSearch#1868

Check List

• New functionality includes testing
• New functionality has been documented
• Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[peternied]

Recommendation use Rich Diff to see this file with the markdown rendered.

[peternied]

This section is comparable to https://github.com/opensearch-project/security/blob/main/release-notes/opensearch-security.release-notes-2.0.0.0-rc1.md#2022-04-20-version-2000-rc1

Note; I've collapsed/omitted several updates by maintainers, it might be worthwhile discussion why we should/shouldn't include some of those items.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1821 (400f804) into main (b514a4a) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #1821   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     60.80%   60.81%           
- Complexity     3186     3187    +1     
=========================================
  Files           253      253           
  Lines         17931    17943   +12     
  Branches       3204     3205    +1     
=========================================
+ Hits          10903    10912    +9     
  Misses         5451     5451           
- Partials       1577     1580    +3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...iance/ComplianceIndexingOperationListenerImpl.java	60.86% <0.00%> (-1.45%)	⬇️
...a/org/opensearch/security/tools/SecurityAdmin.java	37.50% <0.00%> (-0.25%)	⬇️
...ensearch/security/ssl/DefaultSecurityKeyStore.java	67.63% <0.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
...ecurity/configuration/ConfigurationRepository.java	74.17% <0.00%> (+2.19%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b514a4a...400f804. Read the comment docs.

[dblock]

1. All the changes need a link to the PR that made that change.
2. I would develop this as a mechanism for all plugins and core and release in unison, wouldn't want just security plugin to do it.

[rursprung]

see also my comment on opensearch-project/OpenSearch#1868 (comment)

[peternied]

I would develop this as a mechanism for all plugins and core and release in unison, wouldn't want just security plugin to do it.

Very true @dblock; however, that source issue is very much abstract. For the sake generating feedback with a digestible example I started this effort. The 'practice' documentation should move into the meta repository for ratification - did you have thoughts on staging this differently that is being done in this PR?

[peternied]

Per your comments @dblock

1. All the changes need a link to the PR that made that change.

Done.

2. I would develop this as a mechanism for all plugins and core and release in unison, wouldn't want just security plugin to do it.

My thoughts were first by making this change it could help answer the question 'What does this look like' and create a focal point for discussion. It sounds like you would also want a check on pull requests that would make sure this process was not overlooked - what do you think about making a separate issue in opensearch-project/OpenSearch to track this?

[rursprung]

this looks good, thanks!

[cliu123]

There've been the release drafter to generate draft release notes capturing all merged PRs. Why is this changelog needed?

[peternied]

There've been the release drafter to generate draft release notes capturing all merged PRs. Why is this changelog needed?

@cliu123 This changelog isn't machine generated, its human generated. I believe that offers a huge leap in readability. What do you think of the utility of this changelog vs the git log generated release notes?

[cliu123]

This is a good idea that makes changelog available before release! It'd be perfect if it's done automatially instead of manually. It'd be very easy to forget to update CHANGELOG.md on each PR especially for new contributors who are not familiar with our develpment process. In comparison, the release drafter run in CI automatically documents the changes, which makes more sense.
Additionally, opensearch-project/OpenSearch#1868 is still under discussion. Could we wait for more feedback and a decision?

[peternied]

Being that there is still some contention with enforcement, I'm going to close this PR. When the time comes that we can broach this topic I'll see about reopening. Thanks everyone for your consideration.