View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
July 09, 2012
simplifying the changelog
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
July 09, 2012
Re: simplifying the changelog
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
July 09, 2012
Re: simplifying the changelog
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
July 09, 2012
Re: simplifying the changelog
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
July 11, 2012
Re: simplifying the changelog
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.
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home