www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - simplifying the changelog

reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Hi all,


Just found out that bugzilla has a possibility to query all issues fixed 
after a specific date:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&chfieldto=Now&chfield=bug_status&query_format=advanced&chfieldfrom=2012-04-12&resolution=FIXED

This may allow us to simply link to such queries from the changelog, 
having the date range the interval between the previous release and the 
current release. That way there's no more need to write manually entries 
in the changelog.

One problem is that this makes it harder to fix unlisted bugs - people 
would need to add a bug entry if they want it to be listed. I think 
that's minor.


Thoughts?

Andrei
Jul 08 2012
next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Monday, July 09, 2012 01:08:45 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 
 Just found out that bugzilla has a possibility to query all issues fixed
 after a specific date:
 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&chfieldto=Now&
 chfield=bug_status&query_format=advanced&chfieldfrom=2012-04-12&resolution=F
 IXED
 
 This may allow us to simply link to such queries from the changelog,
 having the date range the interval between the previous release and the
 current release. That way there's no more need to write manually entries
 in the changelog.
 
 One problem is that this makes it harder to fix unlisted bugs - people
 would need to add a bug entry if they want it to be listed. I think
 that's minor.
 
 
 Thoughts?

Only the bugs fixed section of the changelog could work that way. We'd still need to manually edit the WHATSNEW section. So, as long as the two can be combined, that should work. Another concern would be that bugs which were actually fixed in a previous released but not closed then would end up under the wrong release, but I think that that also qualifies as minor. And actually, if the bugs section linked in the bug fixes but still allowed you to manually add stuff, then you could still list unreported bugs if you wanted to. So, that problem may be quite fixable. - Jonathan M Davis
Jul 08 2012
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/9/12 1:14 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 Only the bugs fixed section of the changelog could work that way. We'd still
 need to manually edit the WHATSNEW section. So, as long as the two can be
 combined, that should work.

Yah, I'm thinking "Bugs fixed" would be an anchor linked to the query, then "What's new" would be a list just like until now. Andrei
Jul 08 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-07-09 07:22, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Yah, I'm thinking "Bugs fixed" would be an anchor linked to the query,
 then "What's new" would be a list just like until now.

 Andrei

Another option would be to have a script that creates a list like we have now based on that query. Then there's no problem in manually adding some additional entries to the list. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Jul 08 2012
prev sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:40:33 +0200
Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:

 On 2012-07-09 07:22, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 
 Yah, I'm thinking "Bugs fixed" would be an anchor linked to the
 query, then "What's new" would be a list just like until now.

 Andrei

Another option would be to have a script that creates a list like we have now based on that query. Then there's no problem in manually adding some additional entries to the list.

Yes, this. It strikes me as unnecessarily fragile, limiting and inefficient to query bugzilla upon viewing.
Jul 11 2012