July 09, 2012
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
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
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
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
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